Why I’m Ready—and Excited—for Hillary

Why I’m Ready—and Excited—for Hillary

Clinton is running as a feminist—and that matters for all women.

June 2, 2015

Hillary Clinton speaks during the sixth annual Women in the World Summit. (AP Photo/Julie Jacobson)

Independent news is more important than ever.

Sign up for The Nation Daily and get our hard-hitting journalism in your inbox every weekday.

Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Support Progressive Journalism

The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.

Fight Back!

Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions you can each week.

Travel With The Nation

Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits.

Sign up for our Wine Club today.

Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?

My women college classmates (Radcliffe ’71) aren’t so excited about Hillary Clinton. An e-mail to our New York City potluck group elicited distinctly modified rapture. They’re bothered by her high-priced speeches and the aura of favor-trading and favor-banking around the Clinton Foundation. They don’t like her Wall Street connections, and they don’t like Bill (a k a the “ick” factor). Plus, she’s not progressive enough. “It’s all so old and tired,” wrote one; “she’s been running forever.” “I’m definitely excited about the prospect of a woman,” another chimed in. “I am weary, not excited, about her in particular, and find it sad that she’s our best hope.” I should mention that these women are demographically much like Hillary (Wellesley ’69) herself: prosperous, white, highly educated, sixtysomething feminists and professional women. You would think these women, of all people, would be jumping for joy at the prospect of someone so like themselves winning the White House.

But this is where women differ from the other American groups underrepresented in politics. Racial and ethnic minorities can be extremely loyal to their own, but women are hard on other women—and feminists are no exception. Even the idea of electing a Democratic, pro-choice woman president doesn’t necessarily get a rousing cheer. “I’m glad we have a female presidential candidate,” one 22-year-old woman told National Journal, “but it’s incredibly difficult to get excited about something that should have happened decades ago.” Why the world-weariness? Black people were pretty excited about Barack Obama, although electing the nation’s first nonwhite president is another thing that should have happened decades ago. You’d better believe that when the first Jew wins the White House, there will be kvelling from coast to coast, although there have been White House–qualified Jews for a century or more. It’s as if women believe that all those things that should have happened decades ago—passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, the enshrinement of abortion rights with the Roe decision, vigorous enforcement of antidiscrimination law, equal representation in government, federally funded childcare—actually took place and we can all move on.

Here are three reasons why I’m excited about Hillary. First, I’m excited about beating the Republicans, and she’s the best candidate for that job. Even Bernie Sanders recognizes that, which is why, after making stirring speeches that will push her to talk more about inequality, poverty, and campaign-finance reform, he will endorse her. Martin O’Malley may have a few high-profile progressive positions, but his claim to be more liberal than Hillary—or, rather, to have come to the same positions as Hillary sooner—is dubious. As mayor of Baltimore, he set in place the brutal and racist policing strategies that brought us the death of Freddie Gray and the arrest of one-sixth of the city’s entire population in 2005. Furthermore, as Ed Kilgore revealed in his Political Animal blog, back in 2007 O’Malley had the same “vital centrist” Democratic Leadership Council politics that he now accuses Clinton of promoting. So there.

Second, Hillary will be the first woman president—and that is important. At this point in world history, it is embarrassing how backward the United States is. More than 70 women have been chosen to lead their nations, including in gender-conservative countries like Pakistan, Ireland, and the Philippines—and 22 nations have female leaders right now. What is the matter with us? Indeed, we score poorly on every measure of women in politics: not quite 20 percent in Congress (which places us 72nd internationally, between Kenya and Panama); 24 percent in state legislatures; only 17 mayors in the top 100 most populous cities; and only six governors out of 50. A woman president—not a Sarah Palin or Margaret Thatcher, but a liberal Democrat keen on promoting women in politics—would shake up the old-boy networks, energize the women’s vote, and draw more women to the party. To those who say a woman president is only symbolic, I say symbols matter—and who’s to say it will stop there? It’s hard to imagine having the #BlackLivesMatter conversation without Obama in the White House. Maybe Hillary will change the discourse in a similar way.

Third, Hillary is a feminist and is running as one—as she made clear in an April speech: “It is hard to believe that in 2015, so many women still pay a price for being mothers. It is also hard to believe that so many women are also paid less than men for the same work, with even wider gaps for women of color. And if you don’t believe what I say, look to the World Economic Forum, hardly a hotbed of feminist thought. Their rankings show that the United States is 65th out of 142 nations and other territories on equal pay.” She might not have the language of intersectionality down pat, but on a range of issues that matter to women—reproductive rights, healthcare, childcare, pay equity—she will move the ball forward. She will nominate liberal women and people of color to important posts. On the crucial issue of the Supreme Court, where Scalia and Kennedy are close to 80 and Ginsburg is 82, the next president will make choices that shape the nation in fundamental ways for the next 20 or 30 years. Who do you want making those nominations: Hillary, or the Republican who beats Bernie Sanders? Look me in the eye and tell me that you don’t care because what’s really important is Mark Penn, or those State Department e-mails, or that failed Clinton healthcare plan from 22 years ago.

“Why does one have to be ‘excited’ about a person running for president?” one classmate wrote. “Can’t we just be determined?” Point taken, but excitement matters in a campaign. It means donations, volunteers, spreading the word, firing up your friends, and actually making the effort to register and get to the polls.

Still, if you can’t muster any excitement, determination is a good back-up plan. So go out there, feminists, and be determined.

I am neither excited nor ready in the least for more of her 1%er hypocrisy, hubris and hair-tossing.

In 2008, I supported her in the primary, but we know how that went. In the last 7 years I have observed her incompetence, indifference and lack of integrity and these 3 fatal flaws sank her boat in my pond of hope.

In the last 2 years however, BERNIE SANDERS has come from seemingly nowhere to impress me on every level imaginable...intelligence, initiative and insight into the VERY grave American condition and wounded psyche and I like what I hear and how it feels. He speaks to us at a time when we have grown so cynical, distrustful and jaded with regard to the politically-over-correct faux-leadership of our decreasingly less "representative" government.

As a consistently well-spoken, well-modulated and well-informed voice for the gasping working and middle class, he has not disappointed and I find that unlike in Billary's case, the more I hear from him the more I can and do see him as the MOST refreshing voice for America that has not been heard anywhere near the White House in 60 years.

In fact, for the first time in my life, I have put a political bumper sticker on my car and it reads..."BERNIE SANDERS --- EVERYMAN'S PRESDENT"

Billary can go back to taking-over entire Upstate NY towns so that she can spend the rest of her years celebrating her grand-daughter's every Cotillion and Cake-Walk and so that she can choreograph the landing of the ribbon'd swans on the manicured lawns that spell-out "Happy Birthday, Princess" and perhaps this time the local Cub Scout troops can go back to picking up litter along the highway without being interrogated and frisked by the Secret Service.

America is DESPERATE for a White House that will acknowledge the suffering and sacrifices of the American 99% and listen to what a 21st Century America needs today before it has drawn its last breath.on the unemployment line, in the soup kitchen or church basement pantry.

(10)(8)

Disqus_jw9OhB0KHMsays:

June 23, 2015 at 7:07 pm

Katha, Those blinders have to be rubbing you raw. You must be very young for anyone that knows Hillary's past cannot, with a straight face, say she is a feminist. You cannot call a misogynist enabler a feminist. Too funny and very sad.

(8)(9)

Disqus_QRe34YIONbsays:

June 20, 2015 at 6:46 am

wow, she really has you fooled. She represents the status quo, the fact she is a woman changes nothing. And it's a damn stupid reason to vote for her. Oh, and the fact she is a criminal really should have some impact on your vote. Yes we should have a woman president, so find one who doesn't have so much baggage. She would be a curse on the USA

(6)(8)

Disqus_M914csB8Tlsays:

June 19, 2015 at 11:09 am

Liberals pave the way for fascism. This is proof. Hillary is a corporatist, Wall Streeter, of the first order. She is a wacked out militarist: "victory in Libya." The Clintons destroyed the welfare system--but did teach women one thing: Save the dress. She will climb a tree to tell a lie: thousands of deleted emails. Unnecessarily cruel: the travel office. Pollitt is the worst kind of bourgeoisie feminists backing the empire in exchange for the chance to be a decoy agent for capital.

(5)(8)

Disqus_M914csB8Tlsays:

June 19, 2015 at 9:29 am

This just affirms the reality that liberals pave the way for fascists. The Clintons destroyed welfare as we know it, They militarized when a peace dividend was possible. They did teach young women something---save the dress. Hillary as Secretary of State laughed at the destruction of Libya. Her idiot support of the Arab Spring (read, farce) made room for IS. She is a solid corporate stater, recognizing that the government is an executive committee and armed weapon of the rich. Her deleted emails simply prove again that she would climb a tree to tell a lie. Paul Street has written that she is psychotic, and I agree. And Katha is worse than a fool. She's the liberal in the first line and another reason thinking people distrust this magazine. Nobody ever voted the rich out of their money (Lucy Parsons, a real feminist). It will take more than a shell game election to change the rule of capital, it will take a committed class conscious movement, which Katha would fight against. Back to line one.

(3)(5)

JakobFabian01says:

June 17, 2015 at 1:22 am

As usual, I have no ideological quarrel with Katha Pollitt. Maybe she's a little premature strategically, confessing excitement for Hillary Clinton at a time when Bernie Sanders is still running and still contributing much more of substance to the political debate than Clinton has so far.

Supporting Bernie Sanders now is a good offensive strategy. Supporting Hillary Clinton when it becomes necessary to do so is a good defensive strategy. There is no ideological difference between these two strategies. We are talking purely about tactics here.

Sure, it would be better if we could all vote our hopes rather than our fears – and do so with impunity. Sadly, in a three-way Presidential or gubernatorial election, voting our hopes without handing victory to our nightmares would require an electoral system that we do – not – have: namely runoff elections, or better, instant-runoff elections. We don't even elect our President directly; we still have that clunky, indefensible Electoral College, which is so inaccurate that we occasionally install a candidate in the Oval Office who loses the popular vote in a TWO-way race. The freedom to vote our hopes rather than our fears in Presidential elections does – not – exist for us. What does exist is the very real spoiler effect that threatens an unpopular, unrepresentative outcome in every three-way contest in an election for a single executive office.

I have bought a Bernie Sanders T-shirt. I have sent him money. I will listen to what he says, and I hope many other people listen to him, particularly Hillary Clinton herself. If enough people listen to Sanders, then our ideological debate will shift to the left, much to our common benefit. But I believe very strongly, and I think I agree with Katha Pollitt, that this is all, and I do mean all, that the Sanders candidacy can accomplish.

(5)(1)

BillyShakespearesays:

June 18, 2015 at 7:29 am

In Canada there was a politician named Tommy Douglas. While he never became Prime Minister he was seen as the conscience of government. He was a little man with big ideas. Ideas like universal health care and social justice. The right did all in their power to slander him, continually calling him a communist etc. The government of the day even had the RCMP keep a file on him. Eventually his ideas came through and Canada is a better place for it. Like he pointed out in his famous parable “Mouseland” you can lock up a man, but you can’t lock up an idea.

In a recent poll Tommy Douglas was voted by the citizens of Canada as their Greatest Canadian.

I see Bernie Sanders as America’s answer to Tommy Douglas.

(5)(1)

PetertheBanditsays:

June 17, 2015 at 12:32 am

"Ready for Hillary?"

NOT ON YOUR LIFE!

I don't care what the candidate has growing on the chest or between the legs, I want the commitment to social justice that comes from the heart and from the brain. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have both got it, either one will have my vote, Hillary won't.

I'm sick and tired of the American compromise of "Yes, but can he or she win?". When I explained the principle of "the useful vote" to my ten-year old son more than thirty years ago, he mulled it over for a couple minutes, then turned up his innocent face to me and said, with utter seriousness:

"Dad, I think you should vote for whoever you like!"

He was right! Elizabeth if she runs, Bernie for sure, NOT Hillary!

(7)(4)

Navyblue1962says:

June 15, 2015 at 10:33 pm

What a slate the demonuts have. A demented old woman who is a felon, a senile old man with spittle running down both sides of his mouth and the whacky, totally failed former governor of ruined Maryland. What a slate!

(1)(5)

Michelenagelsays:

June 14, 2015 at 12:52 pm

As a woman, I take great offense to anyone who profile votes...These women are mindless drones who, rather than voting for sensible solutions and platforms - choose to support other mindless drones. The three reasons that you're voting for Hillary epitomize how truly mindless you are - absolutely nothing to do with the incredible problems this nation faces and you're creating more barriers to building unity... Katha - you're an idiot.

(5)(4)

CharlieInBrooklynsays:

June 14, 2015 at 10:36 am

Katha Politt is pathetic. And it's disappointing that the Nation decides to publish this tired drivel.

Please everyone, vote Bernie in the primaries. Don't vote for the corporate, war-loving AIPAC shill Hillary who only cares about women like her (white, wealthy, and American) and couldn't give a damn about children and families (as her record thoroughly proves). She also fervently opposed marriage equality until a year ago when she decided to launch her campaign.

Hillary Clinton will destroy this country and dig us deeper into war and corporate take-over even more than Obama has.

Vote Bernie.

(6)(6)

911c2says:

June 13, 2015 at 4:52 pm

Hillary does not speak for me either. I'm a Democrat with Bernie Sanders. Bernie has an intelligence that can be effective in getting "things" done by knowing how to do right things right for everybody. GO BERNIE!

(1)(2)

Disqus_3ZAqaP8w5Jsays:

June 13, 2015 at 4:33 am

Bernie Sanders speaks to me on some, but only SOME issues.
Similarly, Hillary Clinton speaks strongly to me on SOME, but only some issues.
Bernie Sanders will push Hillary Clinton to the "left" on economic inequality issues...and perhaps on foreign policy.
But Bernie doesn't really prioritize or even, I think, deeply care about, gender inequality issues. He talks the talk....sort of...altho not very loudly...see his webpage.
But does he walk the walk....
Same for other Democratic candidates, past and present....

At 72, after decades of working for racial/ethnic, economic equality, I'm finally prioritizing gender equality. I'm tired of waiting...waiting...waiting.
It's not about ANY woman...it's about THIS woman, in the sad reality of US politics!
Even Michele Bachelet can't get a decent abortion bill passed in Chile.
What do we expect, realistically, in the reactionary, ignorant, Creationist-believing, ad-ridden, money driven US political scene!!
Republicans are MUCH worse...perhaps most crucially on reproductive rights...they are opposed not just to abortion but contraception.
Again...one's priorities!! On the lesser of two evils argument!

(1)(0)

Bdejasays:

June 13, 2015 at 1:29 am

She, like her husband is good on civil rights, but neither does little in fact for poor women and poor people in general.She is a champion of monied people. She has not spoken out on the TPP which will ill effect women around the world. Nor has she utter a word on big oil, the Keystone Pipeline, criminals of Wall Street and in Banks. All of these unattended issues will come to make life tough for the average women and man. Being a real feminist includes giving women and men an equal and fair chance of a decent life.

(4)(1)

Batteredupsays:

June 10, 2015 at 11:53 pm

Wake the fuck up, Katha. This woman is a corporate tool and always has been. She's long on war and short on ideas that benefit everyone not connected to the war for profit machine. What about creating jobs? Health care reform, like universal health care? What about affordable education? Prison reform that ends the profiteering and mandatory sentencing that destroys families for small crimes and produces deleteriously negative results we all pay for? What about bank reform to protect consumers? Voters like you, Katha are a MENACE! The same mentality that compelled and "excited" easily fooled dummies into voting for the corporate tool we call O'bomber is the same dimwitted mentality that drives "feminists" into supporting Clinton. She is feeding you a line of crap to get elected, just like O'bomber did and all the corporate tools do. Billary has a life-long umbilical cord connected to the establishment, the corporate hegemony that dictates our government policy. Billary is a friggin' windsock! Bernie Sanders has fought the good fight and will go toe-to-toe with the corrupt establishment, from banks to the war machine. Billary is their lapdog, always was and always will be. Remember when her husband got elected and she came out saying she was going to champion universal health care? What happened to that noble goal? Dead in one year. Her husband popularized the free-trade plague that has cost us more than 3 million jobs since NAFTA and the WTO. She still supports it! How stupid is that? You gotta quit letting the corporate media and windsock candidates brainwash you into more stupid votes. On the other hand, Bernie Sanders has been there fighting for the working class, both genders, all races and all people for the betterment of the country and mankind. When will you wake up and stop singing the corporate tune?

(5)(4)

Thenation-a9eb5edb51165c6ae5dde328003843ecsays:

June 10, 2015 at 11:30 pm

I am a woman who saw the defeat of the ERA and am now seeing the rollback of women's constitutional rights to privacy and self-determination regarding reproduction. We live in an era of increasingly anti-feminist rhetoric, prejudice and discrimination. Pornography and sexually violent "entertainment" degrading to women has proliferated to the point that it now seems ordinary. The "election" of George Bush, with all the resultant horrors of war, torture, financial ruin and the rise of a rabid right wing even in the Supreme Court would not have happened if the Greens had voted for Al Gore. This is no time for repeating that mistake. We need a winning candidate, and Hillary Clinton is that candidate. We NEED her strength, commitment, ability and experience to move forward to a future that will embrace women as equal citizens and promote the interests of ordinary, hard-working Americans.
Come on, people, let's quit carping, get united and break the glass
ceiling once and for all!

(9)(6)

Disqus_mAULbLxwm0says:

June 17, 2015 at 6:53 am

Please. Your focus on social issues, mainly feminism, is like having tunnel vision. We need the person who is capable, has foresight and real leadership qualites--Hillary does not fit the bill.
The reasons why are many, if you'd bother to look them up.
She is a neocon leaning neoliberal, more of a warhawk then you probably want to perceive. She voted for the Iraq war, and with her connections she had much more information available to her. Others, such as Jim Webb, Dem senator, did not, and warned against it. Look up Libya. Look up the TPP "trade" agreement that she publically approved in years past and is now silent.
The list is long.

(5)(3)

Disqus_0zGDG2c2jFsays:

June 11, 2015 at 6:17 am

What a lemming.

(3)(3)

Scorpion_48says:

June 10, 2015 at 11:02 am

The bubble people are alive and living on the Nation's vine. Upset about the Clinton Foundation and an e-mail server? Puh-leeze. What about the crooks of Wall Street who wrecked the world economy, took our taxes, wrote off their losses, were never "perp-walked" and are back selling toxic derivatives again? Look at JPMorgan & Gold-in-Sacks, et al.

Hillary is married to Bill. Where are the complaints about Clarence Thomas and his wife who was a lobbyist for the tea party. Thomas didn't recuse himself on health care reform or Citizen's United. How ethical was that? Thomas hangs out with the Koch brothers. He didn't step aside on the issue of political spending by billionaires attempting to buy the WH. How ethical is that?

You want keep bringing up family ties? Really? Let's look at blood. Bush, Jr won because of blood(Jeb). Another Bush dodged the Silverado bullet because of blood. Marvin won huge contracts from the government because his company was Patriot Act compliant before the Patriot Act was passed. Jebby bough real estate on the cuff, defaulted. He walked away with loan money and taxpayers picked up the tab.

GOP/Koch/Fox News are serial repeaters and some folks are reciting from the Book of Morons.

Amazing that people think their vote matters. All political positions are bought and paid for by the money barrons. The politicians are puppets. And people are just collateral damage......

(0)(0)

Ikallicratessays:

June 10, 2015 at 3:25 am

Why does this website run an article, and close the Comments section on the same day that the article runs, so that no one can comment on the article? This happens frequently. It happened twice in this emailing. Comments for Hillary Clinton's Ethical Challenge and Who Said it, Henry Kissinger Or . . ? are both "closed" (they never opened). Is The Nation phasing out the Comments section?

(0)(0)

Disqus_ANVuNbN493says:

June 9, 2015 at 7:53 am

I am a man and Hillary speaks for my inner woman. I can feel her inside me as she speaks....she is a golden god we should all bow down too. Praise lord Hillary. She is our savior from the gop

(0)(3)

Signalfire1says:

June 9, 2015 at 5:54 am

Did she speak for the women that her husband sexually attacked and ordered brought to his hotel room by Arkansas SP officers for his pleasure? I heard that instead of 'speaking for them', she put PIs on them in order to slander them in the public eye with whatever dirt she could dig up.

(1)(2)

Disqus_0zGDG2c2jFsays:

June 11, 2015 at 6:18 am

But that was for the cause!

(0)(1)

Danielmarcosummariasays:

June 9, 2015 at 1:30 am

Hillary
is NO Eleanor Roosevelt, who prodded and pushed her husband to the
left. She has been, from the beginning, the Goldwater supporter that she
was when she first entered politics. We will not see a pardon of
Manning or Snowden from her, since she has denounced both. As for her
'feminist' credentials? She and her husband crafted the so-called
welfare 'reform' as part of the DLC agenda that arguably ill served
women more than any other demographic group. It is most unlikely that a
committed and genuine feminist was welcome on the corporate boards of
Goldman Sachs, Monsanto or Walmart. The Clintons abandoned both Lani
Guinier AND Dr Elders at the first whiff of opposition, and while they
eagerly pardoned Mark Rich (living comfortably in Switzerland) when
leaving office, no such pardon was forthcoming for Elder's gay son, who
was railroaded into LIFE in prison on contrived drug charges -- largely
as part of the rightwing effort to smear Hillary and her husband.

"Those
in Congress who voted to authorize the war on Iraq decided that Bush /
Cheney / Rumsfeld / Wolfowitz, who claimed that the invasion and
occupation would be good for Iraq and the United States, were somehow
more credible than the broad consensus of scholars familiar with the
country who correctly predicted it would be a disaster for both -- This
is why I believe Hillary Clinton does not have the wisdom or judgment to
be president." —Stephen Zunes

Personally, Hillary
will never get my vote. I can never forgive her Senate vote for GW Bush
and Cheney’s invasion of Iraq. AND all her subsequent votes and support
that followed. It was a grave error of judgment and a piece of cheap and
transparent opportunism unlike any other. And when a rightwing
Democrat, Vietnam veteran and retired MARINE COLONEL like Murtha stood
up and courageously called for a withdrawal from Iraq, largely on behalf
of the military leadership who could not speak out? Hillary condemned
him and was among the first to step up and continue to defend
Bush/Cheney war crimes and say that we needed to stay put in Iraq no
matter what – over and over again. If our 'leaders' won't hold war
criminals accountable, we can, at least, refuse to vote for them. While
it's true these days that 'conservatives' can't read and write: it's
also true that 'liberals' CAN'T COUNT: it's official now that there are
more than a million dead in Iraq.

Clearly, any
politician, male or female, black or white, who has shown him or herself
incapable of learning valuable and obvious lessons from both Vietnam
AND our more recent two invasions and occupation of Iraq, and who
instead was all for attacking Libya and wants still more of the same in a
dozen more places around the world, is not worth a warm crap on a cold
day. PERIOD.

These filthy wars of foreign aggression
have distorted our democracy, destroyed our economy, rescinded our
civil liberties and put genuine and progressive politics on permanent
hold again and again since LBJ ran the ship of state aground in the Gulf
of Tonkin and drowned the legacy of the New Deal. We will see no real
politics, no real changes and no real progress until these endless and
futile bipartisan wars permanently cease. BASED ON HER RECORD OF
WARMONGERING, Hillary is every bit as likely to continue these wars as
Jeb, and is the candidate more likely to call for re-instituting
conscription if only to prove how capable she is of making 'tough'
decisions.

At this point, post Obama, the Democrats
and the nation need more FAKE like the GOP needs more CRAZY. Pollitt
would be more sensible to advance the candidacy of Caitlin Jenner if she
wishes to remain committed to the kind of identity politics that have
served us so badly for the last few decades. My gay male partner of 35
years and I are both italian american and derive little if any comfort
from having Alito and Scalia seated on the bench -- I wonder,
does Pollitt think that we are remiss in this? More likely she would
slap me senseless if i told her that i did so while within reach, or
told her i, a gay man, were voting for Santorum or Giuliani on ethnic
grounds alone. I certainly hope she would. So what gives?

No, not this woman, and certainly not now. WE are definitely ready, but Hillary is not.

(6)(1)

Disqus_qoEvA9dmsusays:

June 8, 2015 at 10:55 pm

Great article. I'm thoroughly excited! Hillary 2016! Whoo hooo!!!!!

(3)(4)

Disqus_mAULbLxwm0says:

June 17, 2015 at 7:00 am

Are you joking?

(2)(2)

Disqus_qoEvA9dmsusays:

June 17, 2015 at 8:36 am

No, are you? I don't understand what's wrong with commenting on a pro Clinton article in a positive way. I am a Hillary supporter and will be campaigning for her, donating to her campaign and voting for her when the time comes. You have a problem with that?

(4)(1)

Michael5186says:

June 9, 2015 at 4:41 am

Are you aroused?

(1)(2)

Disqus_1N6cgjjbJXsays:

June 8, 2015 at 1:17 pm

It's beyond depressing that The Nation is shilling for a corporate tool and war-monger like Hillary Clinton. She supports mass surveillance, the drug war, military interventionist foreign policy, and - until relatively recently, she opposed gay marriage (to name just a few things). If Katha Pollitt is excited by that kind of ideology, she should be writing for National Review instead.

(9)(2)

Nancyincalisays:

June 8, 2015 at 11:28 am

Hillary speaks for me. Your article hit home for me. I have been a Hillary Clinton supporter since she was first lady and I have wanted her to be President for just as long. I am THRILLED she is running, I'll do all I can to ensure her win. Having a woman President is long overdue. Having a progressive woman President is icing on the cake. But you are right. If women don't come out and support her, then I believe we will have a 3rd Bush term. Thanks for your article.

(4)(2)

Disqus_0zGDG2c2jFsays:

June 11, 2015 at 10:20 pm

Hillary speaks for you? Are you also a corrupt hypocrite?

(3)(3)

Restornationsays:

June 8, 2015 at 7:18 am

Flake city, man. Hillary a feminist? What feminist would enable a male sexual predator to the point of destroying other women to protect him? First woman president, Okay, but at ANY cost? With ANY woman? Hillary has done some indefensible stuff but she's still worthy of the highest office of the land? She also would not have gone anywhere without Bill. She got NY in return for putting up with Bill. Identity politics is just stupid. I'd vote for Carly Fiorina before this sad excuse for a mother, wife, and politician.

(3)(1)

Georgehoffmansays:

June 8, 2015 at 4:27 am

Bravo, Katha, for an impassioned article for Hillary. Unfortunately, I'm a cynic but lean to the left. And even though I'm a Vietnam veteran, I voted for her husband for president. I rejected the GOP's smear campaign portraying him as a "draft dodger." Quite frankly, if I knew now what I knew then, if i could travel back in a time machine to the hippy dippy sixties, I'd probably would have avoided military service. But I was taken back by Hillary's vote for the Iraq War resolution. But in fairness to Hillary, John Kerry, another prominent liberal, voted for the resolution and he was a rock star in the anti-war protest movement among Vietnam veterans. But I've finally gotten over my disappointment with Hillary, and I will vote for her because as you so astutely pointed out she will probably deciding who sits on the Supreme Court. Imagine how differently recent history would have been if the clique of conservatives on the court hadn't enacted a coup d'etat and made George W. Bush the next president. So you make a very important point about Hillary as president. If I can somehow get over my disappointment with her caving into the hawks on the issue of war, which I abhor having been a medical corpsman in Vietnam, I hope other left-leaning voters can get beyond her vote. I just hope she has learned her lesson and sincerely means her apology for voting for the Iraq War. Bernie Sanders seems to be forcing to the left which is constructive. And Elizabeth Warren clearly wants to remain in the Senate. And how could I vote for Jeb Bush, supposedly, the "smarter brother." OK, Hilliary's husband scores high on the "ick scale." But I knew that when I voted for them as a package deal, buy one get the other, was the sound bite. So it's a repeat of the Hill and Bill Show once again. Now, the only person who can beat Hillary is Hillary. I hope she doesn't stumble in the campaign and makes it to the White House. She has a wealth of experience in public service, and despite criticisms about a pronounced aspect to her personality that reminds me of Richard Nixon, he once supposedly quipped that even paranoids have enemies. And there's a legion of political operatives in the GOP who will probably prosecute guerrilla warfare against her as they did with her husband. But she will just have to soldier on and run the gauntlet as her husband did. She might even surprise all of us. But I'm voting for her.

(1)(1)

Stevezgtsays:

June 8, 2015 at 3:28 am

Hillary is speaking for big business, that's it. My vote is for Bernie, consistent with his message for decades.

(5)(1)

Thenation-e366d105cfd734677897aaccf51e97a3says:

June 8, 2015 at 12:34 am

I wonder what changed Ms. Pollitt"s opinion of Hillary. Back in 1996 she wrote an article about Hillary Clinton entitled "Village Idiot".

(0)(1)

Bassiekimssays:

June 8, 2015 at 8:23 pm

The title is misleading. It was a pro-Megathatcher piece.

(0)(0)

Thenation-e366d105cfd734677897aaccf51e97a3says:

June 9, 2015 at 10:53 pm

I do not understand what you mean by a "pro-Megathatcher piece". The article was extremely critical of Hillary Clinton. Who does "Village Idiot" refer to if not Hillary?

(0)(0)

Thenation-e366d105cfd734677897aaccf51e97a3says:

June 8, 2015 at 12:15 am

I wonder what changed Katha's mind about Hillary. Back in 1996 Katha wrote an article about Hillary Clinton. The title was "Village Idiot".

(0)(0)

Thenation-55d5b87798d73a517d79bde3607dc18asays:

June 8, 2015 at 12:02 am

To: Those of you upset with the censorship of comments in these blogs.

There is so much liberal censorship here now at The Nation, I was wondering why Katrina vanden Heuvel does not just dispense with Disqus and go to a website format. Then I checked into the costs which are not too much in my opinion, but seeing how Katrina tries to squeeze every penny by over monetizing this blog format, I guess it is just more cost effective for her to display her anti-democratic attitudes than spend a few dollars. How cheap!

She and her lapdogs have prevented people from signing in, have deleted posts, and even have gone into posts and changed wordings or deleted particular sentences which rile the Dutch-American oligarch and her Wall St. friends.

Frankly, I, and I think most readers here from the Left, would prefer that she just end the blog format and only present the propaganda from liberal Democrats such as the uber-feminist Pollitt.

Instead we get this un-American process here at The Nation where She allows comments from her loyal Right opposition (whether neocon or tea party) but will not allow criticisms from the Left which not only annoy her but usually spear the liberal nonsense and perfidy she and her hand picked writers present.

Face it, The Nation is no longer the flagship of the American Left but, under Katrina vanden Heuvel, a wealthy member of the 1%, The Nation is nothing more than the flagship of the Wall St. liberals.

You will learn more about small d democratic ideas and goals by going to such sites as CounterPunch or GlobalResearch.

But she should look again at her bottom line. Surely not allowing comments or censoring them will result not only in a fall in subscriptions to the magazine (why would anyone want to pay for that anyway?) but a fall in her monetization schemes here on this blog site.

But maybe she is getting paid just to collect your information when you log in or even just access this site. (Question, has she made back room deals with the NSA for your information? The search engines and many ISPs and other websites and blogs have done so, so why not her?

We have seen her present articles here which are straight from State Dept. and CIA talking points? She has presented articles here in praise of programs of the 1% thinly disguised with a film of liberalism. And we all have learned in recent years how Katrina used money from the CIA's Fairfield Foundation along with funds from Wall St. banksters and Hollywood Zionists to buy The Nation in the first place. And don't forget her father's role in forming the CIA and protecting the CIA's newly hired Nazi spies after WWII and his long career from his perch at his Wall St. firm Allen & Co. which has been instrumental in shaping the political content of popular culture since WWII via TV and the film industry. She inherited her media manipulation skills from the master, her father.

And while she has presented some coverage of the NSA and joined in the ACLU lawsuit against bulk collection, she has not presented any analysis of any of the national security agencies (which only serve the 1%) in terms of imperialism.

And when she does present some good article on the CIA or the military, these articles promptly disappear from the home page and there is no follow up.

Further, there are many, many covert wars going on now under Obama -- the imperialist in blackface, and which will no doubt be continued by Hillary, the imperialist in pant suits -- which should be covered here, but alas you have to look elsewhere to learn what is really going on in the world today.

It is almost as if she is trying to get everyone to forget that imperialism actually exists.

The Nation, under KVH, has been in the pocket of Obama and now Hillary, as many here have observed, and has only given lip service to American protectionism vs free trade imperialism. The Nation today is far more often on the side of the Wall St. liberals than on the side of working Americans.

Since the end of WWII, the security agencies have been in the service of such free trade imperialism and the narco-banksters of Wall St. and London and not in the service of the American people.

But you won't learn that from Katrina's The Nation. You have to go to other websites from the real Left or look at wikileaks to learn anything about the link between the security agencies, free trade, the banksters and imperialism.

The Nation today is a complete betrayal of the Left and of the New Deal liberals whom Katrina and her family have coopted with their millions. This subversion of FDR and the New Deal by the Vanden Heuvals is the other political crime, besides the corruption of The Nation, committed by this oligarchic family that goes back to the original free trade transnational corporation, the Dutch East India Company.

The key to understanding the politics and editorial policy here at Katrina's The Nation is to follow the money. Just like you would do with any other crook or goniff.

As to the specifics of the censorship. KVH can keep comments such as this and just ignore them as she has when these questions of her family, her purpose here at The Nation, and her politics promoting "insider" protest over protest in the streets have been asked in the past by journalists and those on the Left.

When she censored below was a cogent argument why the tired, old argument, that a Dem must be elected because their Supreme Court nominees will save our souls, is no longer progressive, productive or true, if it ever was.

If this argument is flawed then she and her minions should have rebutted it, not censored the comment. But that simple, decent and intelligent response was beyond them. Thus cometh the axe.

(3)(0)

Disqus_YNxZajYpFhsays:

June 7, 2015 at 10:38 pm

Yes, I'm ready for the discussion of how women have been disadvantaged. The insidious speeches on wage disparity. How Republican's have kept women back fifty years. All lies of course. But Hillary will promote this to the uninformed voter. The voter, both male and female who haven't watched or read news in eight years.

(0)(2)

Disqus_8bBuUg5v5Asays:

June 7, 2015 at 5:28 pm

She lost me when she told Bill, 'Screw the working class'. Oh, and when she worked for WalMart -- as a board member.

(3)(2)

Phillygirlsays:

June 7, 2015 at 10:42 am

It's largely because I'm a feminist, and not despite it, that I am not ready for Hillary. How did she become a candidate, anyway? By marrying the right guy and sticking with him through various humiliations and just plain weird proclivities. Without him, this smart but uninspired, grasping and less-than-charismatic woman would never have come anywhere near the White House without waiting in line with the proles for a tour.

I want the first woman president to be someone who made it on her own, which is not a lot to ask. The huge majority of female politicians do. We deserved a Barbara Jordan, a Shirley Chisholm, an Ann Richards, a Barbara Mikulski, an Amy Klobuchar, an Elizabeth Warren .... and we got someone who got famous for being married.

I'll vote for Hillary because the alternative will be a right-wing lunatic. But I won't be happy about voting for Mrs. Clinton. And please, no potlucks.

(5)(1)

Disqus_mAULbLxwm0says:

June 17, 2015 at 7:04 am

There are others coming up. Hillary is NOT, repeat, NO, inevitable. Others have foresight, common sense, the ability to see real world consequences. Hillary has already shown she lacks these qualities.
Look up the reasons why. Look up Libya, Look up the TPP which she has publically supported in the past.

(4)(1)

Disqus_xryZAz5tHWsays:

June 7, 2015 at 8:00 am

Katha, Katha, Katha...

(2)(0)

Blutopiesays:

June 7, 2015 at 6:48 am

CHECKMATE: Queen Hillary on an AIPAC Horse

=================================================

‘The US Pivot on Israel and the Israeli Lobby/Jewish Lobby in the US’
.........................‘The Reset of US-Israeli Relations’

Hillary is a weakling kowtowing to Bibi Netanyahu, and desires only a Co-Presidency with Bibi Netanyahu as a 'given, forgone conclusion'

Hillary is the female Lindsey Graham

(3)(2)

Thenation-55d5b87798d73a517d79bde3607dc18asays:

June 7, 2015 at 8:22 am

Great points. Great last line. I wish I had thought of it. I will steal it and use it in other forums. Thanks. Please keep commenting.

(2)(0)

Stevenyourkesays:

June 7, 2015 at 4:53 am

Wrong! First of all, there is nothing inherently "progressive" about electing a female President any more than there was in electing an African-American President. Like Obama, Clinton is a reactionary, a war-monger and a loyal tool of Wall Street. (And why do we commonly refer to her as "Hillary" - as though she is our next-door neighbor or a talk-show host and not a conniving politician who will do anything to win?" Why should anyone care about whether the next President is male or female, Black or White - the only thing that matter is what they stand for -and H. Clinton, like Obama, is merely a power-hungry sociopath, a servant of the military industrial complex. She should be repudiated by all who value democracy and civil rights. Shame on Ms. Pollitt for endorsing Clinton.

(3)(1)

Walterpewensays:

June 7, 2015 at 3:39 am

Where to begin, Ms.Pollitt? I almost always like your writing so much, on this, I have to say, yes but...
Hilarry is O.K. she is indeed strong on women's issues. On the rest, not so much. She is so corporate. On defense she's blowing it all the time, despite her good record as Secretary of State. On most every topic other than feminism, we don't really have an idea of where she will land. Frankly, because of her socio/economic background and distant past as a Goldwater Girl I am not a fan, even though I liked Bill. If it works, fine. I ID as a New Deal Democrat for life, and to me that says let's just get the job done, enough boutiuqed candidates. My group, white gay guys are never going to get in, and I do not give a damn. I just want to see the job done. For that to happen she has to move to the left, way to the left. All kinds of things (child care, wages, social services) HAVE to happen, we can't go on like we are. This means radical action and welcoming their hatred. No in between.

(2)(2)

Veginatorsays:

June 6, 2015 at 10:11 pm

Yeah,because feminism is all about promoting the election of warmongering corporate lackeys who happen to be female.

(3)(1)

Laurensteinersays:

June 6, 2015 at 9:31 pm

I am extremely disappointed in Katha Pollitt and shocked that her level of analysis would be so shallow. Many of us voted for Barack Obama to put a black man in the White House even though his progressive credentials were dubious, and he betrayed us all. Hillary has a 40 year track record, and the last 20 have not been good. As other commentators have said, she is a warmongering corporatist who sold fracking to foreign countries, supported the KXL Pipeline, shills for Monsanto and refuses to oppose the TPP. I am a feminist. But her support for women's reproductive rights does not trump all her other policies that are so anti-women and families. Read this excellent article in Jacobin to learn more. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/03/hillary-clinton-womens-rights-feminism/

(5)(1)

Bassiekimssays:

June 6, 2015 at 10:26 pm

Awesome article on Jacobin, Lauren. The sort of piece that The Nation used to publish.

Thanks!

(3)(0)

Bassiekimssays:

June 6, 2015 at 7:31 pm

Using faulty feminism to justify support for a warmongering Neocon. How disgusting.

The Megathatcher is Dick Cheney with ovaries.

Sisters in solidarity: Just say no!

(4)(1)

PlutoCsays:

June 6, 2015 at 5:52 pm

Hillary Clinton is her own worst enemy. She has been approved to run in the general election by the plutocrats after having committed her loyalty to them. To seal the deal for Clinton's commitment, she accepted gift(s) of large sums of money from the plutocrats. Receiving the plutocrats' approval explains, in part, why she enjoys non stop positive coverage (support?) from the corporate media.

She is a farce. Research her 8 years playing Senator from NY and there is not a single bill of hers that had any supporters and none of her bills were ever voted into law. Moynihan, the neoliberal/neoconservative Senator from NY, considered a weak legislator (such irony!), anointed her - she, the Goldwater Republican until the age of 21 - as his successor. It all fits.

Likewise, appointed Secretary of State by Obama that ended 4 years later, there is little in the way of achievements. She is best known for Benghazi, the extracurricular activities involving embassy and security personnel and her SOS emails ensconced on her "secure" personal server at home in NY. Compare her SOS record with Kerry's.

Clinton's words are designed to get her elected. Again, her loyalty, well documented, is to the plutocracy.

Capitalism has replaced America's democracy with plutocracy. At best, she is a puppet that will carry on the effort (now in the end game) to convert the US to a full plutocracy.

Voting republican or voting Clinton is the same and is a vote supporting the plutocracy. A careful and honest look at Clinton reveals that she is a republican! A vote for her is a vote for the same ideologies that hurt and damage the 99% and is destroying the last vestiges of America's democracy.

(1)(1)

Jmartindalesays:

June 6, 2015 at 5:41 pm

Hillary speaks for me. I agree with every word of this article. I commend Katha for laying it out so clearly, and I wish the people writing the comments below had read what Katha was saying and taken it to heart.

(3)(0)

Thenation-55d5b87798d73a517d79bde3607dc18asays:

June 6, 2015 at 5:50 pm

Would it not be better to actually THINK about what the writers at The Nation write on issues rather than simply being emotional and taking the writings to heart? Most of those who take the time to comment here do just that, j.martindale. I recommend you try it.

(2)(1)

Jmartindalesays:

June 6, 2015 at 9:05 pm

I do "THINK," thank you very much. And my thought processes have led me to agree with the writer of the article. Like the rag-tag followers of Eugene McCarthy in the '60s, I encourage you to follow your politically naive impulses if you wish. I am sure you will get a purple heart for "trying," and when failure is the inevitable outcome, you will lick your wounds and commend yourself for your purity of spirit.

But to speak the truth, I doubt you mean a word of what you say. If you were truly a supporter of the ideas of Sanders or Warren, you would realize as they do that, in the end, liberals will need to band together against the rethugs. And we can support almost any of the candidates the Democrats have put forward to date. Sanders and Warren know that and have cleaved to their message rather than attacking one another.

But every time I see an article in support of Clinton on the blogs, a passel of her critics pop up and make derogatory remarks, belittling her and her followers. And it has crossed my mind more than once that the only people who truly benefit from creating discord are the Rethugs. You wouldn't be a paid stooge making trouble for the Kochs, would you? I kind of doubt you would admit it if you were.

(2)(1)

Thenation-55d5b87798d73a517d79bde3607dc18asays:

June 6, 2015 at 10:04 pm

You must be new to these blogs or you would know my politics as I have been commenting here since The Nation first offered the opportunity for democratic discourse. My criticisms of the Democrats come from the Left not the Right. Hillary is unacceptable to all true progressives.

And the idea that progressives should join with liberals out of fear of the "rethugs" is the same tired, old, unproductive meme that liberals always trot out to isolate and destroy the Left and prevent a progressive America. In the final analysis, I have said here many times, the liberals of the 1% and their minions are no different than the conservatives of the 1% and their minions. Conservatives prefer to rule with the iron fist while liberals opt to rule with that same iron fist but hidden inside a velvet glove. In the final analysis, there is no difference between the neocon Hillary and the neocon Graham. And once you examine the international networks that Bill & Hillary circulate within, you will notice they are the same international networks frequented by the Bushes.

So if you don't want us on the Left to stop telling the truth about Hillary, stop telling lies about the Left. On second thought, we are never going to stop telling the truth about Hillary and your comments about the Left only reveal your true commitment to continuing war, imperialism and austerity.

(2)(2)

Jmartindalesays:

June 7, 2015 at 2:42 am

I am a progressive. Clinton's record as a senator was the 11t most liberal, surpassing Obama, who was rated 23. Her efforts for health care reform were altogether progressive. She opposed the grand bargain on Social Security from the very beginning. I disagreed with her on the Iraq war, but she showed herself to be a responsible Secretary of State, attempting to lead us out of the quagmire in the Middle East. She has been progressive on social issues such as gay rights and abortion rights. And as this article points out, she has a damned good chance of winning the election. I like Sanders an awfully lot. He had the most liberal record in the Senate, which I applaud him for. But Americans are afraid of people that can be labeled "extremists." You can huff and puff all you want, but he WILL NOT WIN THE PUBLIC OVER.

Clinton will appoint Supreme Court justices who will follow the lead of her husband's appointee, Ginsburg. If you think Bill was a neocon, he really screwed the pooch with that appointment. Hillary worked on the McGovern campaign. She did research for the Democratic Party on Nixon's impeachment. You can delude yourself that she is no different than the Thugs, but you are wrong.

(3)(0)

Thenation-55d5b87798d73a517d79bde3607dc18asays:

June 7, 2015 at 3:25 am

Winning the Presidency should not be the goal of the Left at this moment in history and not until we have a mass movement that can dominate such an election.

And "attempting to lead us out of the quagmire in the Middle East"? Wow! You are conveniently "forgetting" the illegal war against Libya by Obama's mercenary Al Qaeda troops posing as "rebels" who on CIA orders murdered that nation's leader & his family, and which has turned that nation into a failed state with growing terror camps, an illegal war pushed and promoted and defended, by Hillary. And this illegal war against Libya became the spark that led to the chaos in Syria and the formation of ISIS. Hillary's position in all of this was to undermine the security of North Africa & the Mediterranean and to foster terrorism in the Middle East and Africa.

And again the composition of the Supreme Court is an irrelevant issue as long as the banksters of Wall St. and London rule both the Dems and Reps. Ginsburg has done nothing to stop the war machine and can do nothing. She and the other liberals are fig leafs helping to hide the ruling class.

Hillary's campaign must be disrupted as much as any of the Republicans.

When any of these candidates come to your state or town, disrupt their appearances. That is the tactic the Left must employ during this election period along with continued marches against police brutality, union busting, the effects of austerity, and, of course, the war machine run by both the Dems and the Reps.

(0)(0)

Thenation-c2e42a2c74a389edcbb73650363e052dsays:

June 6, 2015 at 12:29 pm

Surprised you're excited about Clinton, Ms. P.
She is, in my opinion, amongst the worst of the neoliberals, which is to say a moderate-to-moderately-conservative Republican.
While I don't doubt her smarts, strength, or ambition, I trust her no more and no less than I trust her husband.
If Sanders weren't running, I'd have no one to vote for yet again.

(5)(1)

Danielmarcosummariasays:

June 6, 2015 at 11:57 am

It is with grave reluctance that i disagree with Katha Pollitt on any subject -- other than this one, since i have learned too much from her over the years and admire her writing immensely. In fact i think she is arguably the best essayist alive today who is writing in English, and most certainly on issues that pertain to the role of women in politics and society.

However, Hillary is NO Eleanor Roosevelt, who prodded and pushed her husband to the left. She has been, from the beginning, the Goldwater supporter that she was when she first entered politics. We will not see a pardon of Manning or Snowden from her, since she has denounced both. As for her 'feminist' credentials? She and her husband crafted the so-called welfare 'reform' as part of the DLC agenda that arguably ill served women more than any other demographic group. It is most unlikely that a committed and genuine feminist was welcome on the corporate boards of Goldman Sachs, Monsanto or Walmart. The Clintons abandoned both Lani Guinier AND Dr Elders at the first whiff of opposition, and while they eagerly pardoned Mark Rich (living comfortably in Switzerland) when leaving office, no such pardon was forthcoming for Elder's gay son, who was railroaded into LIFE in prison on contrived drug charges -- largely as part of the rightwing effort to smear Hillary and her husband.

"Those in Congress who voted to authorize the war on Iraq decided that Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld / Wolfowitz, who claimed that the invasion and occupation would be good for Iraq and the United States, were somehow more credible than the broad consensus of scholars familiar with the country who correctly predicted it would be a disaster for both -- This is why I believe Hillary Clinton does not have the wisdom or judgment to be president." —Stephen Zunes.

'Who knew?' We ALL knew, even those lying to us knew.

Personally, Hillary will never get my vote. I can never forgive her Senate vote for GW Bush and Cheney’s invasion of Iraq. AND all her subsequent votes and support that followed. It was a grave error of judgment and a piece of cheap and transparent opportunism unlike any other. And when a rightwing Democrat, Vietnam veteran and retired MARINE COLONEL like Murtha stood up and courageously called for a withdrawal from Iraq, largely on behalf of the military leadership who could not speak out? Hillary condemned him and was among the first to step up and continue to defend Bush/Cheney war crimes and say that we needed to stay put in Iraq no matter what – over and over again. If our 'leaders' won't hold war criminals accountable, we can, at least, refuse to vote for them. While it's true these days that 'conservatives' can't read and write: it's also true that 'liberals' CAN'T COUNT: it's official now that there are more than a million dead in Iraq.

Clearly, any politician, male or female, black or white, who has shown him or herself incapable of learning valuable and obvious lessons from both Vietnam AND our more recent two invasions and occupation of Iraq, and who instead was all for attacking Libya and wants still more of the same in a dozen more places around the world, is not worth a warm crap on a cold day. PERIOD.

These filthy wars of foreign aggression have distorted our democracy, destroyed our economy, rescinded our civil liberties and put genuine and progressive politics on permanent hold again and again since LBJ ran the ship of state aground in the Gulf of Tonkin and drowned the legacy of the New Deal. We will see no real politics, no real changes and no real progress until these endless and futile bipartisan wars permanently cease. BASED ON HER RECORD OF WARMONGERING, Hillary is every bit as likely to continue these wars as Jeb, and is the candidate more likely to call for re-instituting conscription if only to prove how capable she is of making 'tough' decisions.

At this point, post Obama, the Democrats and the nation need more FAKE like the GOP needs more CRAZY. Pollitt would be more sensible to advance the candidacy of Caitlin Jenner if she wishes to remain committed to the kind of identity politics that have served us so badly for the last few decades. My gay male partner of 35 years and I are both Italian American and derive little if any comfort from having Alito and Scalia seated on the bench -- I wonder does Pollitt think that we are remiss in this? More likely she would slap me senseless if i told her that i did so while within reach, or told her I, a gay man, were voting for Santorum or Giuliani on ethnic grounds alone. I certainly hope she would. So what gives?

No, not this woman, and certainly not now. WE are definitely ready, but Hillary is not.

(0)(0)

AnthonyLooksays:

June 6, 2015 at 10:17 am

Republicans and their primary clown car tea party birther racist pandering campaign stance on issues for the next year and a half------ is going to haunt any Republican that wins the primary in the general election. Exciting isn't it.

(0)(0)

Thenation-55d5b87798d73a517d79bde3607dc18asays:

June 6, 2015 at 10:34 am

If only it were that easy. We are just one major terrorist attack away from electing President Lindsay Graham.

The political situation is far more grave than naive liberals want to believe. There is every likelihood that Hillary will implode because of her finances and that none of the other Dems will catch on. And it is very likely that a Rep will emerge if there is more hysteria and fear of Islam.

Don't think it couldn't happen.

(0)(0)

AnthonyLooksays:

June 6, 2015 at 10:46 am

First, if anything the Clintons are very capable and know how to manage finances. Secondly, Lindsey Graham is as good as gay; his election---never gonna happen. Lastly any of the "other" Democratic candidates will beat any of these Republican clown cars knuckle dragging Neanderthals in the general election. More worried about getting back the Senate and make gains in the House.

(0)(0)

Thenation-55d5b87798d73a517d79bde3607dc18asays:

June 6, 2015 at 11:50 am

AnthonyLook, you missed the point. I only used Graham as a metaphor for the fact that a neocon will get elected if there is another attack - which is as likely as Hillary getting elected.

Otherwise, I agree with your descriptions of the Reps. But you are making a vary naive mistake if you think logic and righteousness will beat the Rep clowns. Rep clowns have been elected before when Dems have failed. Hillary could easily implode and she may not be replaced by Sanders or O'Malley or Chafee. Face reality.

(0)(0)

AnthonyLooksays:

June 6, 2015 at 3:45 pm

Highly unlikely scenario. Since I was supporting her at the time, I remember many a cringing moment in her 2008 campaign. I remember throwing my hands up in disgust as she imploded. Last time Hillary defeated Hillary. She subsequently precariously too, took the job offered by President Obama and I sense that she grew and learned from the experience as Secretary and under President Obama- to the point of being somewhat humbled. No one is ever really ready to be President; it's an on the job training kind of job. Hillary in the last 8 years has evolved to be presidential. In 2008 she fancied herself to; in 2016 she is ready. I don't worry about she herself being her own worse enemy in the 2016 campaign; at least not like last time. She may misstep if the Republicans succeed in their constant pressing her buttons and last nerve by losing her temper; short of that, I think we are going to see a near flawless campaign that resonates through the primary campaign and especially against any of the clown car candidates elected. With her Democratic primary challengers, despite the political pot shots, there we be a drastic difference by comparison to the car clown debates. Substance among the Democratic primary candidates will be demonstratively elevated and pertinent. There will be no tea party birther pandering fluff or the mancho drama of who is more conservative. At the very least, the one thing that comes out of the Democratic Primary will be education. For both the candidates and the electorate. Hillary is at the top of her game as a politician. When I ask myself- who will have a run with destiny and be our next President. Firstly, I completely disregard the Republicans- there is seriously not one genuinely qualified. All the Republicans insofar as their goal for evolution into being truly presidential-----well - all the Republicans are where Hillary was 8 years ago. They are not relevant in the 2016 campaign. Hillary does have a rendezvous with destiny, and so do we. She is ready and America is ready. The Republicans, they are going to feel that chip on her shoulder; you know why, because that's why we are voting for her.

(0)(0)

Thenation-55d5b87798d73a517d79bde3607dc18asays:

June 6, 2015 at 6:14 pm

You may be right about the outcome. Time will tell.

But your enthusiasm, lack of objectivity and failure to recognize the threats to Hillary's campaign only reveals that you are a partisan Clintonite. "Rendezvous with destiny"? Really?

The odds are 50/50 that you are going to be greatly disappointed.

In any case, America is going to be screwed whether she wins or whether one of the Reps win. None of the current candidates are qualified to be President of the United States.

Even the anti-war candidates Sanders and Paul who have excited those of us opposed to our war economy and armed conflicts, well, now in over 75 countries, are not fully qualified to be President of the USA. Sanders takes money from the Rockefellers and Paul is mired in Sourthern attitudes on race and gender.

All of these candidates to differing degrees support imperialist opportunism, continued free trade looting or the existence of oligarchy, the organizational form of the 1%.

America was founded and struggled to form a more perfect Union, with a few notable exceptions, until the end of the 19th Century as a progressive, protectionist nation of all the people, not just the rich, and a nation that did not go abroad looking for monsters to fight. Only a candidate that stands for what the best of our Founders and such as Abraham Lincoln stood for, is qualified to be President of the United States. Instead they are only qualified to be President of the 1%.

Hillary is fine with our many wars, has not demonstrated any stronger protectionist policies than the lip service to American protectionism vs. the free trade policies (pushed by the puppets of the banksters of Wall St. and London) presented in the lackluster Democratic Party platform. In fact, the Dems of today are merely the reverse side of the same oligarchic coin as the Reps. The two parties of the 1% are twins, TweedleDee and Tweedledum, promoting the same imperialist and oligarchic rule over America.

Hillary is a tool of the 1% at least since she went to the 1%'s central committee's vetting party for Presidents of the 1%, the Bilderberg Conference at The Grove hotel in Watford, Hertfordshire, England in 2013. Although pictures of her attending circulated in the British press at the time she has lied about attending ever since.

Those who support Hillary, as wildly as AnthonyLook here, are only supporting the 1% ever as much as anyone who votes for a Republican.

(1)(0)

AnthonyLooksays:

June 6, 2015 at 10:16 pm

Ah, see; now that we got your true agenda out, that's better.
No amount of bloviated fear mongering propaganda by an extremist like you or any Libertarian or Republican is going to change the outcome of future President Hillary Clinton.

(0)(0)

Thenation-55d5b87798d73a517d79bde3607dc18asays:

June 7, 2015 at 3:31 am

Dream on.

And my agenda has been out for years. I have called for the impeachment of Obama, the imperialist in blackface, since his first year in office when he began betraying his campaign pledges.

If you achieve your dream of dreams and Hillary is elected, I expect her to follow Obama's imperialist, warmongering path and I will, indeed, call for the impeachment of Hillary Clinton, the imperialist in pant suits.

Rand Paul has excited not only libertarians but those of us in the anti-war Left. However, as I have written here many times, Paul is mired in Southern attitudes on race and gender and I do not support libertarian economics. I support the domestic, foreign and economic policies of our greatest President, Abraham Lincoln, and his chief economic adviser Henry C. Carey whose economic viewpoint was the basis for FDR's New Deal according to FDR's chief economic adviser Harry Hopkins. This is the economic policies called Protectionism. The history of America has been a fight between protectionists and free traders. Currently, Sanders comes closest to actually being a protectionist except that he takes money from the Rockefellers who are always up to no good. Protectionism is opposed to libertarianism in that we think a strong Federal government is necessary for the progress of our people. Protectionism is opposed to liberalism and conservatism as they are merely the two faces of oligarchy, of the 1%.

In this present election, the power of Protectionism, and the difficulties facing our country under the Bush/Obama economy, are front and center in that not only liberals are once again pretending to be protectionist while the conservatives are making protectionist noises. But we, on the Left, true progressives, all know they are all liars and support free trade imperialism and permanent war.

So, again at this point in history, I say progressives have no champion running for the White House so it is fatuous to waste time on any particular candidacy. On the other hand there is ample opportunity for the Left to grow, for America to once again be protected and shine as an example for the whole world instead of serving as the war platform for the international 1%.

Those opportunities lie in mass protest against the worst of the candidates in both parties.

If that makes me a nut job then I say we need more nut jobs to stand up to those of you who serve the 1%.

Instead of throwing insults at people here who disagree with you, why don't you simply ask them what their viewpoints are and why they disagree with your opinions. That is what a decent, intelligence person would do.

(0)(0)

Spazarusays:

June 6, 2015 at 9:38 am

If Hillary is the nominee and progressives stay home and we get a Republican to pack the Supreme Court, where will we be then? In hell, that's where. The Supreme Court is all I need to know about to pull the lever for Hillary with gusto. Period. End of story.

(1)(0)

Thenation-55d5b87798d73a517d79bde3607dc18asays:

June 6, 2015 at 10:39 am

You have bought into the false Supreme Court argument. The fact is that both major political parties are dedicated, with few exceptions, to permanent war, free trade imperialism, and austerity at home. Who is on the Supreme Court does not matter as long as America is ruled by a duopoly beholding only to the richest of the 1%.

(0)(0)

Spazarusays:

June 6, 2015 at 4:36 pm

Ask the Koch Brothers if it matters who is on the Supreme Court. Ask women who are being denied birth control because of their religiously intolerant employers if it matters who is on the Supreme Court. Ask women who want reproductive rights if it matters who is on the Supreme Court. Ask homosexuals who want equality if it matters who is on the Supreme Court. I don't doubt that most politicians are in the pockets of the rich, but these issues are real to me and certainly DOES matter who is on the Supreme Court.

(0)(0)

Dreamjoehillsays:

June 7, 2015 at 10:44 pm

Hey, did you ever stop and think that here might be more important issues than gay marriage and free birth control?
Like Killary's hand in destroying the nation of Iraq and her part in starting the effort to destroy Syria as a functioning secular nation?
I support gay rights and access to birth control, but I won't pull the lever for a blood soaked war monger over those issues.

(0)(0)

Thenation-55d5b87798d73a517d79bde3607dc18asays:

June 7, 2015 at 9:11 pm

Once again, the liberal and phony progressive editors at The Nation have deleted my answer to you which proved that it DOES NOT matter at this point in history who is on the 1%'s Supreme Court.

Hey editors, answer and rebut my remarks but don't censor them. You are only proving that you are in fact anti-democratic and that your liberal stance is only a thin veil covering your true natures.

(0)(0)

Dreamjoehillsays:

June 7, 2015 at 10:41 pm

Liberal censorship strikes again. To think I used to pay actual money to subscribe to The Nation in the 80's.
Never again.

(0)(0)

Thenation-55d5b87798d73a517d79bde3607dc18asays:

June 7, 2015 at 8:08 pm

You liberals and conservatives always bring up identity issues to preserve imperialism. You use the old divide & conquer tactics to keep your parties in power. Conservatives love to go up against liberals and liberals love to go up against conservatives because each of these two false sides need and preserve each other as their "loyal opposition". And they protect each other in many, many ways. Just look at the way Pelosi protected Gingrich. Or all those years the liberals protected Richard Nixon until Watergate. Or the ways the neocons have protected Obama from impeachment (oh they bitch about him but they do nothing as they know he is actually running the wars they desire).

The fact is that imperialism and a war economy matter much, much more than any of your personal problems. Eventually imperialism and permanent wars bring down nation states. In the long run, if we continue to be ruled by the 1% it won't matter what the Supreme Court says about the narrow rights of women or gays because there won't be a Constitutional America to protect the rights of anyone. Eventually, the chickens will come home to roost.

Oh, the 1% will grant some limited progress on rights for women or gays or even other factions within the U.S. through the corrupt political parties and perhaps through these corrupt political parties' Supreme Court nominees, but they will never grant FULL power to those classes below the 1% in the social and wealth hierarchy.

But because liberals, such as you, spazaru, can't see beyond your narrow interests and your immediate need for political gratification, you can not see the harm your support for the status quo are having on the country. Even assuming you have a "liberal" Supreme Court in the next few years, any bone they throw you can be taken away just as quickly. But you won't even get that small token. As long as the 1% rule over the two political parties -- and their Supreme Court nominees -- you will only be gambling on your future and your rights.

If we once again had a democratic (small d) government, political parties of the people, and a peace loving foreign policy as well as a protectionist economy, then the full rights of women, gays and other minorities could actually be realized and realized swiftly.

If you keep supporting the status quo as you do, women and gays will continue to struggle for decades and decades for their full rights. By continuing to support the status quo duopoly of the two political parties jointly ruled by the narco-banksters of Wall St. and London (the full 1%), you are only fooling yourself about any progress that can be made by having a "liberal" Supreme Court, even if you could achieve that which is dubious.

And as our free trade adventures and constant warfare degrade the quality of life on this planet and in this nation, those temporary, throw-them-a-bone, rights gained by women and gays from a corrupt Supreme Court or a corrupt Congress, and certainly from a corrupt Executive will erode in ways you obviously can not imagine or fathom.

You want to preserve the existence of such oligarchs as the Kochs (as well as their liberal oligarchic counterparts such as the Rockefellors or Soros). You just want those oligarchs on the Right to loose in the electoral and Supreme Court decision roulette.

In many ways, your argument is similar to that made by German Jews in the 1930s who supported rather than rose up against the Nazis. Even millions of German Jews joined in Hitler's army and marched into Poland along side the Nazis only to be rewarded soon with purges and trips to the death camps. They supported Hitler because they supported the status quo (and the by then rigged political system) even though Mein Kampf and other Nazi propaganda clearly declared that Jews were the enemy of Germany. The writing was literally on the wall, yet they continued to support the Nazi government and fight for it.

(and yes I am violating Godwin's Law and comparing the present electoral system run by and for the Dems/Reps to the ELECTED fascist party of Nazi Germany. I do so because in the long run only fascism can continue the duopoly of the Dems/Reps, and because in recent years both parties have flirted with corporatism (the actual economic form of fascism).

Once the euphoria and narcotic effects of the rhetoric you, and other supporters of the duopoly, utter wear off, and the American people come to their senses, only some kind of full blown fascism will keep the 1% in power. This has been proven throughout history.

Our Founders and the best of our leaders always saw things in long terms. They had a vision for America and did not want a government that reacted to the immediate and temporary concerns of factions. They warned us about substituting even the best of goals by factions for the long term goals of the nation.

Unlike crypto-quislings such as today's liberals, I want to ELIMINATE the power of the Kochs and the Rockefellers and liquidate the entire 1%, and do so by whatever means are necessary. For as long as they rule, any bone given to you by THEIR Supreme Court can just as easily be taken away from you.

Just look at Citizen's United which has taken away more of the rights of Americans than any homophobic or misogynistic act ever has. Liberals bitch about Citizen's United, but I have yet to see them march on the Supreme Court and demand the reversal of this ruling.

(In my view, and the view of many of us on the radical Left, when the Supreme Court ruling on Citizen's United was issues, we should have dealt with the traitor's on the Court in the same way George Washington dealt with the Whiskey Rebellion.)

But Noooooo! The answer you liberals have given is to wait, wait, wait until you can (possibly) stack the Supreme Court with your nominees who may (repeat may) reverse this anti-American ruling by the traitor judges and the liberal judges who allowed them to make such a ruling.

A truly patriotic Supreme Court judge should have protested, even resigned, when the Right-wing majority forced this ruling down our throats. But Ginsburg and the others continue to sit in their hallowed robes and continue to enjoy their Supreme privileges under this fascist ruling. And by doing so they actually support Citizen's United, just as all the liberals in Congress actually supported Bush's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan on false premises even if they voted against it. A vote is an easy thing, but actually fighting against the Right is difficult and not something privileged liberals ever do.

Wake up, spazaru. The present Supreme Court under the rule of the 1% can never protect you for the long term no matter how much you beg them to do so.

Wake up, spazaru. The Democratic Party under the rule of the 1% can never protect you for the long term no matter how much you vote for them or send them money.

They will continue to fool you by saying such as only the Kochs and the conservative billionaires are the 1% while ignoring that most of Wall St. is liberal.

I want an America ruled by the Middle Class and the working poor and that will never happen as long as we continue supporting the duopoly of the Dems/Reps and seeing American progress and politics in only small six year terms, or our political and economic situation in narrow and naive identity terms.

In the final analysis, and at this critical turning point in history, the Supreme Court argument for maintaining the status quo, as well as your promoting of the liberal Democratic Party as the false champion of the people, is counterproductive for any true progress, and not, in any fashion, small d democracy.

(0)(0)

Cstahnkesays:

June 6, 2015 at 7:59 am

Pretty stunning coming out of Pollit. I'm not entirely opposed to Hilary but I found her murderous and disgusting neocon foreign policy pretty hard to take--how many bodies is she responsible for? But that's pretty much par for the course for any mainstream politician--got to have a willingness to murder people particularly if there's no good reason for it. Plus her policy did quite a bit to aid the Empire of Chaos to create yet more chaos.

I know why Pollit favors Hilary, her alleged "feminism" and willingness to throw the rest of us under the bus for a slightly bigger slice of the shrinking pie for women.

(2)(0)

Thenation-55d5b87798d73a517d79bde3607dc18asays:

June 6, 2015 at 10:40 am

Good observation.

(1)(0)

Disqus_aELlumvupMsays:

June 6, 2015 at 7:39 am

Not a word that Hillary is a plain old crook.

(0)(0)

Rdsathenesays:

June 6, 2015 at 2:35 am

I voted for the Honorable Cynthia McKinney in '08 and Dr. Jill Stein in '12, but you can seriously miss me with Ms. Clinton. I support feminism, not imperialism.

(6)(0)

Haywoodwhysays:

June 6, 2015 at 12:34 am

I have also been hoping we would see a woman run for president, and be able to win. If Bernie were not running, the choice of Hillary would almost be a no brainer, but Bernie brings something to the race that was not there before. Bernie talks about the issues in a clear and concise manner, and he talks about the issues that we need to face as a nation...like our crumbling infrastructure. And Bernie is calling for the debates to start early and happen often! Hillary acts like she does not want to debate at alI. I want a real debate between Clinton and Sanders, and I want to see real debates with all of the candidates, not some forum that just shows who has been purchased by wealth and who has not. And look at what William Jefferson Clinton did to our economy and savings when he killed Glass-Steagall? Why do all of you think that we have to be represented by a super rich person? I know what Bernie will do when he is elected, unlike Hillary; Bernie will represent we, the people, just like he always has!
And Bernie has Wall Street trembling badly because they know what will come down the pike if he is elected!

(5)(0)

Didierortizsays:

June 5, 2015 at 11:33 pm

This is such a disgrace. The Nation has gone downhill. How are you gonna tell me that Killary cares about women or people of color. When she has supported military campaigns that have killed scores of women and people of color. This is a such a trash piece. I'm not advocating for Sanders (I, personally, see him as Obama 2.0) but to think that Hillary is anything close to progressive is a JOKE.

(4)(0)

Rudythomassensays:

June 5, 2015 at 10:56 pm

I strongly believe in progressive liberalism and, as such, love Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, but I'm a realist. The USA is not ready for a Warren or Sanders presidency. We are stuck with two political parties closely engaged to the Washington and Wall Street interests.
I will continue to vote Democrat, until a truly liberal option comes to the table. There is a need for a progressive political party in the USA.

(0)(3)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 6, 2015 at 10:49 pm

We can change the direction of the Democrats if we just keep pushing for people like Warren and Sanders and stop voting for the lesser evil—that's just letting the rich "dems" decide they want to look good to the public by backing the "left" while acting exactly like the rich people on the right except for giving a little of their money to a few good causes.

(0)(0)

Thenation-55d5b87798d73a517d79bde3607dc18asays:

June 6, 2015 at 10:41 am

Instead of wasting time voting for whom you know is wrong for the country, why don't you spend time helping to organize a new party of the Middle Class and working poor?

(1)(0)

Thenation-c4088bee6d917c3a9cce9bd1367e55e5says:

June 5, 2015 at 10:56 pm

Katha Pollitt thinks that women…
…are too hard on Hillary Clinton because women are hard on other women. "Just when you think you’ve heard all the excuses possible for why Clinton isn’t receiving the approval she was expected to get, you see something 'creative' like this"

Pollit's always been a goozing scribbler with a penchant for sharing her half-baked semi-solid lumps of feces. This one is especially fragrant.

(1)(1)

Johnchereiiisays:

June 5, 2015 at 10:19 pm

I think Ms. Pollitt is drunk on kool-aid. I remember reading similar posts, on this very website, about then candidate Barak Obama. How did that Change pan out mates? Time to open your eyes Ms. Pollitt, more women in politics does not translate into better solutions for the serious problems facing out country. Problems Mrs. Clinton will exacerbate as seen from her record, i.e. Iraq war vote, Patriot act support, time on the board of Walmart, transparency?, economic ties to Titans of Wall Street (the despoilers who rocked the world economy) and political cowardice not taking a stand on anything controversial. Inequality, jobs, infrastructure, government spying, corruption.. all issues strangling the future of America. I want a woman to be president but more than that I want a bold leader capable of fixing those issues and lighting a candle for the future. Mrs. Clinton is not that person. Not even close. Don't forget the darling of WallStreet and beltway cliques anonymous got trounced and silenced by the junior Senator from Illinois. No one saw that coming! Just like no one can cite a single foreign policy victory from the record globe trotting Mrs. Clinton did as SOS.. unless you count calling military dictators like Mubarak in Egypt close friends or the host of other chummy personal relations Hil and Bill maintain with despot after despot. For purely humanitarian access of course. In closing, if you think Hilary Clinton is going to change any calculus in Washington, time to wipe that lip, think I see some kool aid. Stick with a healthy glass of milk, won't make you so naively giddy.

(5)(0)

Mrbiggs2usays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:50 pm

I've heard that Huma is ready and excited for Hillsy most nights too......

(0)(0)

Peachmcdouallsays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:49 pm

I believed all these arguments for supporting the 'lesser of two evils' until I read this article: http://tinyurl.com/whyboycott2016 Our nation's situation is too dire at this moment in history to pretend to give 'the consent of the governed' to this wretched and murderous mess.

(1)(0)

Booker25says:

June 5, 2015 at 6:48 pm

I am not excited about Hillary, I am voting for Bernie!!!

(2)(0)

Disqus_7KXGFu0WAisays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:30 pm

So, you're admitting you're endorsing Hillary Clinton already? And that you're once again not even going to talk about third-party candidates?

The Nation: Once again, not as liberal as it pretends to be.

(4)(0)

CarolDuhart2says:

June 6, 2015 at 4:16 am

Third Parties on the national level are hapless and hopeless. No matter what, no Green is going to be President when they have a hard time even winning local seats.

Man, we go through this every time a Democrat runs. No Republican even thinks about the Constitution Party or the Libertarian party as a realistic right alternative-they know that's a hopeless cause no matter if the the third party agrees with their positions. They stick to voting for Republicans who can actually get something done by getting into office. It's a lot easier than trying to get an alternative party up to speed after decades of futility.

(0)(0)

Thenation-55d5b87798d73a517d79bde3607dc18asays:

June 6, 2015 at 10:51 am

The futility exists only because no serious effort at a third party has been made since Teddy Roosevelt turned the country over to the 1%. A serious party must be willing to fight mostly in the streets, with non-violent direct action to disrupt and discourage the plans of the 1% before this new party adapts an electoral strategy. Only a militant, party of protest and disruption can beat the Dems and Reps and that has not been tried for a long, long time. Since WWII, the Left has been lost either following the "lessor of two evils" meme or by following some foreign, ultimately un-American, ideology. The models for our new party must not only come from the valiant protests of the 60s and early 70s for peace and civil rights, but more significantly the fighting politics of our Founders, of the Federalist/Whigs and of the original and no longer existing Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln. Neither the Dems nor the Reps resemble anything like those political parties. Instead the Dems and the Reps are just modern versions of the Torries and the Confederates of past history.

Playing the electoral game before the new party is strong is fatuous and doomed. If we want to overthrow the rule by the 1%, then we need to overthrow the rule by the 1%.

(2)(0)

Thenation-55d5b87798d73a517d79bde3607dc18asays:

June 6, 2015 at 11:53 am

P.S., a good way to start building a party is for those who marched saying Black Lives Matter would disrupt every appearance by a Republican or a Democrat war monger. And by disrupt, I mean successfully stopping such appearances. It can be done with masses of protesters simply not allowing them to speak.

Now some of you may think that is nice and you are correct. It is time to stop playing nice with the 1% and their puppets.

(1)(0)

Disqus_7KXGFu0WAisays:

June 6, 2015 at 4:25 am

That said, Hillz would be my last choice of current or rumored Democratic candidates, setting aside the Green Party.

(1)(0)

Disqus_7KXGFu0WAisays:

June 6, 2015 at 4:24 am

"Man, we go through this every time someone disses third parties." Fixed it for you.

As I read from a friend of a friend:

"People who say they'll only vote for third parties after they're viable are like people who say they'll only ride a bicycle after it's already moving."

(2)(0)

Thenation-55d5b87798d73a517d79bde3607dc18asays:

June 6, 2015 at 10:52 am

Ditto!

(1)(0)

Erpiusays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:16 pm

pollitt should speak about feminism since she is good at that, and not about sending a warmongering servant of WS and of world plutocrats to the WH.

truly shameful symbolic-special-interests myopia... like a fan of german shepard dogs supporting hitler bcse he loved dearly his bitch goldie...

remember: hillary's "signature achievement" as "feminist secretary of state" was the stone-ageization of libya and syria...

how are the (concededly darker-skinned) women of libya, syria, iraq, etc, doing these days, katha?

do you think too that the 300k dead iraqi children caused by hillary's hubby's sanctions were "worth the prize" as that other "feminist" icon m.albright said on national TV very feministically?

(5)(0)

Disqus_K1YmrbcM4osays:

June 5, 2015 at 2:34 pm

"Third, Hillary is a feminist and is running as one—as she made clear in an April speech: “It is hard to believe that in 2015, so many women still pay a price for being mothers. It is also hard to believe that so many women are also paid less than men for the same work, with even wider gaps for women of color. And if you don’t believe what I say, look to the World Economic Forum, hardly a hotbed of feminist thought. Their rankings show that the United States is 65th out of 142 nations and other territories on equal pay.”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Hillary-Clinton-men-women-pay/2015/02/23/id/626388/

(0)(1)

Thenation-55d5b87798d73a517d79bde3607dc18asays:

June 6, 2015 at 10:53 am

Women will never have equal pay as long as we have a war economy.

(2)(0)

Disqus_HUlIQrISZpsays:

June 5, 2015 at 1:44 pm

So you were paid or requested to write this by the "Hillary for President" campaign? You surely think highly of yourself with your Eastern upper-class credentials, but do you realize that you make simple-minded assumptions that are typical of New York City liberals? First of all, you apparently believe that the issues that matter most to women are "women's issues," such as abortion, equal pay, child care, etc. But like most Democrats, you love to put people into categories. You mention blacks, women, Jews, etc. Why are you incapable of seeing people as individuals? And why don't you (and Hillary) recognize that women are intelligent enough to be concerned about more than selfish female issues? Despite my "nom" here, I am a woman, and my major concern is the fact that Isis is burning, beheading, and crucifying Christians, other Muslims, and political enemies. I am concerned about the national debt and unemployment rates. Perhaps most importantly, I am concerned about the constant outright lying and obfuscation of the current administration. Let's call it what it is: It isn't "lack of transparency," it is lying. I am also concerned that women like you are so self-absorbed and focused on liberal, feminist causes that you are willing to elect a lying hypocrite who has committed felonies (obstruction of an investigation, destruction of evidence in an investigation, lying to Congressional committees, using less than 15% of her charity for charitable purposes while lining her pockets selfishly, etc). So apparently you could care less about having a moral, honest national leader whose spouse is not a cheater and a rapist so long as that leader has female organs? Who is the real idiot here? Also, apparently you are fine with a woman who puts her own financial gain ahead of the national security of the country (Russian uranium deal), the act of which is probably treason and worthy of imprisonment. Excited? No, I'm disgusted.

(2)(0)

Thenation-55d5b87798d73a517d79bde3607dc18asays:

June 6, 2015 at 10:53 am

Good points.

(1)(0)

Thenation-c01b2e0cdbaf3b618bc8c355f507036bsays:

June 5, 2015 at 12:43 pm

Madam, I doubt that any of your old Radcliffe 71' Ladies-In-Perpetual-Waiting ever had to try to raise a family on the wages that Mizz Clinton has quietly (and very lady-likely) accepted without a quibble. You, and your's, madam are on the wrong side of herstory

(2)(0)

Tricia100says:

June 5, 2015 at 11:54 am

I am a 68 year old woman definitely unexcited about Hillary. She is joined at the hip with Wall St., never met a war she didn't like, and is owned by that Jew in Las Vegas who is itching for a war with Iran on Israel's behalf. In other words a corporate Democrat. What has she ever done for middle and working class people when it wasn't campaign season?
I am all for Bernie Sanders and will work to elect him.
I notice this writer concentrated on social issues in her praise of Clinton, but I vote on economic issues.

(4)(1)

Floydrturbotsays:

June 5, 2015 at 12:15 pm

"...and is owned by that Jew in Las Vegas..."

Way to go tricia. We can always count on liberals like you to show your true discriminatory stripes while on your quest to be holier than thou. You are no better than the KKK.

(1)(2)

Thenation-3799b1b07b30d0b4e2ae9bcd64ced560says:

June 5, 2015 at 12:57 pm

tricia100 was inarticulate but the use of the word "Jew" to describe a Jewish Zionist and neocon is hardly "showing true discriminatory stripes" and certainly is not worthy of a comparison with the KKK. More likely she is just not politically correct.

Your sensitivity to the use of the word "Jew" to describe a Jewish person might have made some sense in the years after the Holocaust when everyone was in shock and there was a need to be sensitive. But after over 60 years of Israeli and Zionist perfidy and lies, being overly sensitive to either Israelis or Zionists (Jewish or gentile) is counter-productive for the future of America. It is time to stop the political correctness madness and admit that many, not all, but many Jews today are acting against the best interests of America. Saying so is not anti-semitic. It is simply truthful.

Face it. Hillary is not the only present candidate for our President who is influenced, if not owned, by wealthy Zionists who are more loyal to Israel's present neocon government than they are to the USA.

She is also influenced, if not owned, by most of the Sunni Arab leaders also.

Arabs and Jews having the same goal for America may seem odd to those not familiar with today's real politic but that is nonetheless the situation in our 2016 election. The common denominator is money.

And, as others here have said, Wall St. also influences, if not owns, Hillary Clinton.

Money, money, money.

So the only thing we know about Hillary besides her rhetoric and her history is that she will sell herself to whomever has the bucks to pay for her favors. I am not just saying Hillary is a whore. I am saying most politicians are whores today and Hillary is just another working girl on the mean streets of politics.

There is nothing special, that differentiates her from the whores running from the Right, which commends her to being President of the United States.

(3)(1)

Floydrturbotsays:

June 5, 2015 at 9:32 pm

It is amazing the contortions liberals twist themselves in to when trying to justify their discriminatory biases. How is the context different than describing Obama "as that black community organizer", when the context is not meant to be complimentary, as opposed to historical?

(1)(1)

Thenation-55d5b87798d73a517d79bde3607dc18asays:

June 6, 2015 at 4:38 am

I agree that the Right uses the Obama reference as a slur which is, undoubtedly, racist on their part, but you liberals are dead wrong when you use the reference as "historical". Obama was NEVER a "community organizer". He was hired by a front for the CIA to go into the black and minority communities so that he could learn how to be "black". Obama was raised and coddled his entire youth and throughout his education by people involved with the CIA and elite sectors of our society. His grandmother, mother, father and step father all worked for the Agency. He is a product of the intelligence community not of black America. That is what is "historical" about Obama. He is, at best, a phony. Which should explain to even the most ideologically bent liberal why he has betrayed nearly every position of the Left and his own campaign since he was elected President.

Hillary, by owing so much to so many elites, will be no different. She will betray nearly every position she is forced to take in the campaign by Sanders or others.

Wake up liberals or you will be repeating the history of this dark and increasingly dangerous era under Obama, the imperialist in blackface.

Don't elect the imperialist in pant suits.

(2)(0)

Thenation-55d5b87798d73a517d79bde3607dc18asays:

June 5, 2015 at 10:28 am

Questions, Katha: What does it matter if Hillary is a feminist or not (or whether she nominates good Supreme Court justices) if she continues and expands the now more than 75 armed conflicts and wars produced by Bush and Obama? Surely you don't think that more opportunities for half our population (as needed as that may be) trumps perpetual war and imperialist subversion of other nations?

If you do then I suppose you think that we should excuse Obama's war mongering and support for free trade treaties because he's black.

In all your writings here at The Nation, we have never seen you comment on war or free trade imperialism (and I looked back at the archives for any acknowledgement by you on these most important of issues). Please comment now.

Are you more than a one issue commentator? Or are you just what you appear to be, a fanatical, ideologically blind, uber-feminist who would probably support a dictatorship as long as the dictator was a woman.

(3)(0)

Bill_catsays:

June 5, 2015 at 9:50 am

Actually the only thing I am weary of is other womens hyper criticism of themselves, each other and their own gender and lack of support of each other.

Only when women are able to work as a team to support a decent female candidate, which in my opinion Clinton is, will they DESERVE to have a female President.

If women can't see through a male biased press and system enough to not believe everything negative they hear and side with "team male" once again then once again there will have never have been a female President.

There is a reason why we haven't had a female President yet - women are their own worst enemies and males, as horrible as they sometimes are and as toxic to the future of humanity with the warmongering - do understand exactly how to work as a team when it benefits them.

(2)(2)

Disqus_yA7Vk5FtMbsays:

June 5, 2015 at 9:48 am

Hillary just made a hell of a speech about voters' rights and voter repression by the rethugs.
Her style of delivery is very different than it was in 2008, and far more convincing.
I'm hoping she's really a people's advocate.
Stranger things have happened.

(2)(2)

VaskaAsays:

June 5, 2015 at 11:51 pm

Stop hoping. She isn't a people's advocate. She is just versed at faking whatever needs to be faked to get her where she wants to get to. Believe it.

(1)(0)

Crackingceilingssays:

June 5, 2015 at 9:36 am

Yes, Hillary is what we need...it's time. It's my time...it's Hillary time. She represents everything America needs. Bernie Sanders has a fantasy problem that keeps me from even giving him a second glance. He's also what we've always had, an older white man. No way does he represent me. O'Malley is ego driven quite like the republican candidates. No, no, no...voters are saying it's time for a qualified, strong, woman to lead this country. We are fighting for Hillary and there is a groundswell of us, women and men, who are determined to make history.... HILLARY POTUS 2016.

Why must we always choose between Unacceptable and More Unacceptable? That Hillary is a Zionist racist, struck out on constitutional democracy in Haiti,was complicit in replacement of a genuine democrat in Honduras with a coup regime and rampant death squad violence and is in bed with Wall Street greed are reasons enough for me to count her totally unacceptable.

(2)(1)

Disqus_4LBXvULAStsays:

June 5, 2015 at 9:14 am

I'm voting for Hillary Clinton because she has a vagina.

Duh.

(2)(1)

Bill_catsays:

June 5, 2015 at 10:04 am

But we've always voted for men in large part because they have male bits. Duh. "The balls to lead" or some other such nonsense. And it was all perfectly fine for people to be all excited about our former saviour Obama because he was black.. but female oh gosh no that is forbidden to be excited about that.

(1)(1)

VaskaAsays:

June 5, 2015 at 11:53 pm

Hardly rational, voting by the genitals approach.

CH is a woman this feminist here would never vote for.

(1)(0)

DonnaLynnMsays:

June 5, 2015 at 8:53 am

I want a person who will look out for me (a woman) and my kids (two sons--one daughter lost on 9/11). It is better to elect the best candidate for all people than for pretend feminists. Bernie Sanders right now--essential!

(4)(1)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 8:48 am

“I remained a socialist for several years, even after my rejection of Marxism; and if there could be such a thing as socialism combined with individual liberty, I would be a socialist still. For nothing could be better than living a modest, simple, and free life in an egalitarian society. It took some time before I recognized this as no more than a beautiful dream; that freedom is more important than equality; that the attempt to realize equality endangers freedom; and that, if freedom is lost, there will not even be equality among the unfree.”
― Karl Popper, Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography

Et tu Bernie?

(2)(2)

VaskaAsays:

June 5, 2015 at 11:55 pm

I go with John Stuart Mill on that point: the man who wrote "On Liberty" became a socialist in the last third of this life precisely because he saw socialism perfectly compatible with the freedom of the individual.

(2)(0)

Lipstick_lesbiansays:

June 5, 2015 at 8:37 am

I used to be for Hillary but after hearing about her charging $300,000 for hour long speeches I am not impressed with her. She was going off about CEO,s making 300 times more than the average American all the while charging $300,000 for hour long speeches. That is hypocrisy. I hope for some reason Bernie Sanders will defeat Hillary but I am not sure if that is possible.

(2)(0)

Bill_catsays:

June 5, 2015 at 10:06 am

So what if she got paid well. It will probably end up going to charity when she dies anyway if not before.

Do you want an intelligent President? I sure do. That is the MOST important quality I want in a leader not whether they managed to get paid a lot or not.

(0)(2)

Floydrturbotsays:

June 5, 2015 at 12:34 pm

"Do you want an intelligent President? I sure do."
Yeah, we heard that nonsense eight years ago. Obama is supposed to be the smartest man in the room. Valerie told us so, so it must be true. If Hillary is so intelligent, why does she dodge answering questions from reporters? Why do over 50% of voters not trust her?

(2)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 12:06 pm

As she said, it's not the money, it's the hypocrisy-- and her "charity" spends less than 10% of the money it takes in on actual charity.

...and what, exactly, makes you so certain of her "intelligence"? She's known for decades she was going to run for president and yet she continually made short-sighted decisions that have resulted in the avalanche of bad news currently wrecking her chances. She can't even stop herself from making embarrassing shrill gaffes like screeching "what difference does it make!?!?" and "get to the back of the line". She's been married to one of the most gifted natural politicians in a century for decades and hasn't seemed to learn a thing from him about relating to ordinary people-- people who she seems to have nothing but disdain for.

(4)(0)

Joel0903says:

June 5, 2015 at 8:33 am

To start with, she's NOT a feminist - by her actions. She's not honest or trustworthy - by her actions. She's not accomplished at much of anything - by her record. Why is it you're excited and ready for her? I do remember that she stood of for women by attacking the character of the women her husband had affairs with (and in one case sexually harassed). Maybe you're excited that she stood by her man after he lied under oath? Maybe you're excited that she has more or less gotten away with repeatedly lying to the public (and to government officials performing their official duties - something that's generally considered a felony)? Maybe you're excited that she got away with asking Congress, and the American people what difference it makes if an obscure video or systemic security failures by her department led to the assassination of an ambassador? Maybe you're excited that she'll likely get away with storing classified information on a non-secured server which is likely not rated for the storage of classified information? That she signed an affidavit that she knew was false when she left the State Department (another felony)? What is it you're excited about, again?

(3)(1)

Hughmcgrathsays:

June 5, 2015 at 8:32 am

Ms Pollitt wants a woman president to cure the backward US. Not just a woman who is capable like so many Jews have been capable for a hundred years. No, she has to be like, well like Ms Pollitt, a progressive narcissist. Capable women who admire Thatcher need not apply. Very backward of you Ms Pollitt, way back backward.

(2)(2)

Disqus_00vnVF4RIksays:

June 5, 2015 at 8:24 am

Identity politics diverts attention from the systemic economic injustices that are crying out to be diagnosed and redressed by honest and competent leaders, regardless of their gender. Those interested in maintaining the status quo are very content to have our journalists and intellectuals squander their energy quarreling over race, gender and sex.

(5)(0)

Dazzeetrader1980says:

June 5, 2015 at 8:09 am

Says more about the author than it does about this snake who's pretending to be qualitied for anything but being a liar and a hustler. I cannot imagine women voting for HIllary. I won't. I'll campaign against her. It's about being a good president than it is about gender. THe qustion continues to be "what has she done"? Answer: continualy messed things up.

(5)(1)

Disqus_LaNJzjvaJgsays:

June 5, 2015 at 8:09 am

Clinton 2016 - I am with you - all in!

(1)(1)

Frankd51says:

June 5, 2015 at 8:05 am

How depressing if those are the best reasons for electing HRC. Everybody said electing Obama would change the black's view of their place in the USA and the opportunities available to them. Result? They have been pushed further down the pecking order, have fewer opportunities, and higher crime rates among themselves.
And who REALLY thinks HRC is a feminist? What true feminist would have stayed with the serial abuser and rapist WJC? HRC stayed because she couldn't make it on her own because she has little talent.
Electing tokens, which Progressives love to do....the first black this, the first Hispanic that, the first transgender that, etc, etc does not make the world a better place. Grow up.

(6)(1)

Disqus_71G0GUf2aTsays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:58 am

Ms. Pollitt, can you explain why your feminist candidate paid women in the State Dept. less than men? Can you explain why this lying dirtbag feminist has attacked every woman her philandering husband porked? Wouldn't a feminist support those women who were abused by her powerful husband? Face it, Kankles could give a $hit less about you and your moronic friends. She wouldn't pi$$ on you if you were on fire. What a fool you are to hitch your wagon to Kankles' star.

(4)(1)

CP21says:

June 5, 2015 at 7:56 am

This author is an imbecile. Essentially she has bought in to Hillarious' message of "vote for me, I have a vagina." Yes it is important to have a woman POTUS... just not a lying, scheming incompetent like Hillary Milhous Clinton

(6)(1)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:58 am

Hillary couldn't fill PM Thatchers flats.

(1)(1)

Disqus_PK9xq9sw4psays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:50 am

"You’d better believe that when the first Jew wins the White House, there will be kvelling from coast to coast." We'll find out next year!

(1)(0)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:55 am

Bloomberg?
There has been talk about him from Dems seeking an alternative to Hillary.

I don't disagree with Ms. Pollitt's views on the symbolic and tangible benefits of electing a woman to the Office of the Presidency. In an ideal world, gender or race wouldn't be factors at all in judging an individual qualified to hold the post. However, the world we live in is not only far from ideal, it is on the brink of collapse, in a state of crisis that is worsening exponentially on virtually every front. For this reason, I would argue that we can allow neither gender nor race to figure significantly in the selection of the next American President. The issues we must attend to, above all others, are deeply interconnected: aggressively addressing climate change, ending our reliance on fossil fuels, correcting income inequality, breaking the power of mega- and trans-national corporations, terminating the oligarchic grip on political power and returning to some semblance of democracy, re-energizing the labor movement and eliminating nuclear stockpiles worldwide, to name just a few, In light of these real concerns - which will be bearing down on us within the next 8 years, conservatively, and with unimaginably dire consequences - the only presidential candidates we can afford to support must be seriously, earnestly and passionately focused on averting this perfect storm of disasters. Hillary Clinton is not only not focused on these issues, she is a willing participant in perpetuating many of them. As Secretary of State, she shilled relentlessly for Chevron and BP, selling fracking to nations that didn't even want it. Her ties to Wall Street and big money have already translated into a less than robust concern for income inequality, she is a well-known hawk and supporter of the invasion of Iraq, and her "liberal" positions confine themselves conveniently to issues with no substantial or immediate dimension in money or real power: freedom to marry, women's rights, mass incarceration, race relations. Arguably, hopefully, the age of self-serving political operators in America is coming to an end, and the power-hungry calculus of opportunism practiced by Hillary Clinton - precisely the center-right mindset that brought us to this breaking point - will have no place in it. Remember that "conventional wisdom" is a tool of the status quo. We must get past the distractions, get excited about Bernie Sanders - the only proven progressive option at the moment - and bring about the political revolution Ms. Clinton's gender alone will not accomplish.

(1)(0)

Jeffbba69says:

June 5, 2015 at 7:39 am

It's pretty. Pathetic when your excited about a woman who sold herself ta philandering husband for money, power and position. I think that is what we call a high priced hooker.

(1)(1)

Pattywoosays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:19 am

If you like the way the Democrats have
run Baltimore and Detroit, you will love Hillary Clinton

(5)(1)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:11 am

Any idea when Hillary will give her " I AM NOT A CROOK" speech?

(1)(1)

Nsirchovsays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:10 am

Yawn, Another close minded twit sweaty for Hildabeast.

(0)(1)

Bob_ackersays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:01 am

I didn't bother finishing this. Of course she can win if the Republicans nominate one of their classic turkeys, but if they manage not to do that she'll sink out of sight. Canadian mining executives just happened to wake up one day and decide to give $22 million to AIDS relief, and then it just so happened they got clearance to get uranium mines. If you can't smell that you can't smell at all. Come on. That's it in two words. Come on.

(2)(0)

Thomas_daviesays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:07 am

Hillary Clinton approves trade deals? Didnt know the Secretary of State had the unilateral power to do that.

(2)(0)

Sharon_normalsays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:39 am

Probably reference to the authority to grant an license permitting foreign sale of defense articles restricted under the international traffic in arms regulation (ITAR)

Put up the link where we can see where the Secretary of State can negotiate and approve their own trade deals with foreign countries without the Presidents approval .

(1)(0)

Bob_ackersays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:32 am

1. It's easier to believe she forged Barack's signature than to believe that Canadian deal was all a crazy coincidence.

2. It's not my fault you were born without a nose.

(1)(1)

Sharon_normalsays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:56 am

Will Hilary's "Checkers" speech be "the Buddy speech" or "the Socks speech"?

(1)(1)

Floydrturbotsays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:31 am

I'm thinking that it will be the Nixon farewell speech after losing the California governorship race to Jerry Brown's father in 1962.

"You won't have Hillary Clinton to kick around anymore..."

(3)(1)

Thomas_daviesays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:06 am

I dunno but all those folks became president.

(1)(0)

Disqus_snCvVD6i8Wsays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:51 am

"...

This article appeared in the June 22-29, 2015 edition of The Nation..."
What? And Ms Pollitt....you CAN"T be serious. You need a counseling session with Camile Paglia....really.

(1)(1)

Thomas_daviesays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:05 am

You forgot to provide the link so we can see for ourselves.

(0)(0)

Disqus_PK9xq9sw4psays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:30 am

Or you can support Bernie Sanders and actually get excited! "I’m excited about beating the Republicans, and she’s the best candidate for that job." Yet you admit that even her most natural supporters tend to be unexcited, while Sanders is exciting people across a wide range of the political spectrum. You tell me who's better suited to defeating the Republicans.

Do the Democrats want to make the same mistake as when they rejected Howard Dean in 2004? (It wasn't enough for John Kerry's supporters to be "determined.") If the party nominates Sanders, people will vote for them; if they nominate Mrs. Clinton, they'll only be voting against the Republicans.

BTW, what makes you so sure that Sanders recognizes that HRC is better-suited to defeating the Republicans than he is?

(1)(1)

Disqus_PK9xq9sw4psays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:39 am

Also, saying that Sanders will support HRC after she gets the nomination means little. Won't she support him if he gets nominated?

(1)(1)

Thomas_daviesays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:45 am

Do you realize what it actually means to run for President?

It means $$$$ . Donors. LOTS of them. How do you get donors when you poll 4% of the Democratic vote and run 30% behind the Republicans in match ups?

You dont. Even if Hillary dropped out tomorrow the Democratic mega donor base and CPACs would never be able to fundraise for Sanders as their Democratic nominee.

Joe Biden would be the nominee.

(1)(1)

Disqus_PK9xq9sw4psays:

June 5, 2015 at 10:32 am

Sanders' poll ratings are already on the rise. Don't hide your head in the sand.

(1)(0)

S_valentisays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:28 am

I'm so tired of all the criticisms being leveled at Clinton. While it's understandable that Republicans are going to pull apart her resume - she polls better than anyone they've promoted - It's criticism from Democrats that really bothers me. Yes, Clinton has a past, a resume. It's what was lacking in our current President and look how he's failed at leadership. It's precisely that quality - leadership that Clinton offers. Are we going to support every position or approach she's taken? Of course not, but she's demonstrated leadership and doesn't seem to second guess herself. I suppose there's always someone who like Obama is a blank slate - who may have spent their career bloviating in Congress or in a state senate somewhere or even in a law classroom, but I'll be supporting someone who's actually contributed and demonstrated leadership.

(1)(1)

Thomas_daviesays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:51 am

Hillary does a VERY POOR job of promoting herself. She always has. She thinks the can just 'think' herself out of every situation.

She speaks plainly, she uses very matter of fact gestures and lives her life of her own terms. This is something to be admired if you agree with everything she does but if you dont, then it looks arrogant and self entitled.

What she really needs to do is ditch her entourage and find herself again as an average person.

(1)(1)

Floydrturbotsays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:16 am

"What she really needs..."

What she really needs is a personality and some common sense. Those are traits that all of the money in her foundation can not buy for her.

(2)(1)

Portle44says:

June 5, 2015 at 6:24 am

Everyone who detests the Democrat crime family is also ready and excited for Hillary Clinton.The country should only be lucky enough for the Democrat party to nominate the corrupt slug.

(0)(1)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:44 am

True. In a way "I am ready for Hillary."
:)
Walker in '16

(2)(2)

Sorgfeltsays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:20 am

I hope, if she wins, that she does more for women than the first black president did for blacks. Hillary openly supports war, Monsanto, and big bankers. How much worse can you get? At least she is honest about it. I regret voting for the least evil person just to keep someone worse out, and won't do it again. I will vote Green in the next election, even if it seems to be throwing my vote away. Our voting system needs to change.

(1)(1)

Cloudy2says:

June 5, 2015 at 6:19 am

#nohillary is for the rich, wealthy, white and educated woman voter.

She was on Wal-Mart's board for 6 years, and didn't have anything to say about pay.
#nohillary watched as Wal-Mart employees received food stamps, welfare and
Medicaid.She never spoke of unions, but enough is known about Bill's friend on the same board---he thought that unions were parasites.

How much of your tax-dollar is going to support the employees of Wal-Mart?
How much money are highways and exits costing us? When Wal-Mart comes
into a community, Wal-Mart receives money for roads, sites, etc.

I want a president who is for everybody, especially those who have no voice.

(1)(1)

Floydrturbotsays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:13 am

"I want a president who is for everybody, especially those who have no voice."

I'd be happy if we could have a president that looked out for our country's best interests rather than their own pocketbook.

(4)(0)

Thomas_daviesays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:52 am

You guys come here and find negatives with Clinton, like your GOP candidates have ever done one IOTA of anything for anyone.

Its fine and all to knock Clinton down , but at some point people are saying.......ok so what have YOUR guys done instead?

(0)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 12:24 pm

Well, governor Perry was kind enough to add most of the jobs to the economy that Barack Obama takes credit for, for one.

(0)(0)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:47 am

Interesting that you fail to notice that by coming into a community Wal-Mart provides jobs for construction on roads and its big box building. Plus hiring locals. But in your world that is evil.

(1)(0)

Disqus_moU9Zcd6Kysays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:17 am

Can I write for the nation? ...because you sure can't. There are no facts, no cohesive argument. I mean Hillary as a feminist is so laughable. Katha, you surely get that? I guess we can't all be paid to talk about what our friends emailed us and are ill-thought perceptions. #weak

(1)(0)

Thomas_daviesays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:56 am

Do you know anything about Hillary Clinton? Is she a bra burning hippie smoking pot all day and denouncing men with every breath? No.

But she has consistently stood up for womens rights without exception for decades upon decades.

(0)(0)

Disqus_PK9xq9sw4psays:

June 5, 2015 at 10:33 am

The word for HRC is "weasel."

(1)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:00 am

Sure she has-- just ask Paula Jones or Monica Lewinsky.

(3)(0)

Thomas_daviesays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:02 am

Not too sure she stands up for women cheating with her husband .

But be sure to put that one on a bumper sticker as a campaign slogan for the GOP.

'We republicans endorse the women who screw around with our husbands'!!!

(0)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 12:13 pm

Monica aside, I was unaware being groped or flashed constituted "screwing around".

How about a bumper sticker that reads "We democrats stand up for women-- unless they're assaulted by Bill, in which case we dismiss them as sluts"

(0)(0)

Floydrturbotsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:48 am

"My women college classmates (Radcliffe ‘71)"

Great! We have another unrepentant hippie ticking off three of the most superficial reasons imaginable for electing a president. For a sixty something adult, she hasn't advanced psychologically any further than the girls that would stand on one side of the high school gym during a lunchtime sock hop.

(3)(0)

Disqus_JJkzXKOeL3says:

June 5, 2015 at 5:46 am

Just imagine what's going on in Hillary's mind. Here she is, knowing absolutely that she should have been the DNC's 2008 Presidential Nominee and then in turn, POTUS. That, I think she believes, was her very best chance at getting elected to the White House.

She worked her entire life to acquire this ultimate power grab. She put up with a lifetime of being Bill's doormat, suffering the indignities of being that pitiful image of the cheated-upon wife. Back in the day, her best opportunity to obtain any kind of power was to be either a stunningly exceptional woman on her own merits or to strap herself to a charismatic figure and hold on for dear life. She had no choice but to do the latter seeing she was really nothing special. Not having particularly sparkling good looks, she has had to study harder, gravel for opportunities and just overall work harder than most (especially men) to get on anyone's radar. Over the years she has had to play second fiddle to that charismatic figure, sharing all his shame, critiques, scandals and rarely getting to share in his so-called accomplishments.

For the past 8 years she has had to hold her tongue and play nice with another charismatic figure even after his team tried to label her and Bill "racists" during the 2008 DNC primaries. Running a 2nd time, she must now carry the label of being Obama's 3rd term, once again playing second fiddle to THIS charismatic figure. It's only because Obama's shine has dimmed extensively, his coattails may have now become her hindrance. Here she is definitely sharing in another charismatic figure's downfalls.

Yes, Hillary not only must be held in account for the bad choices her husband and Obama have made but she does carry her very own manufactured baggage. She is certainly not blame free whatsoever. After writing this, I have had a bit of an epiphany. Although I abhor Hillary for all she represents, I may just have garnered a miniscule bit of sympathy for her. When all is said and done - poor Hillary, always second fiddle yet pays the price for all her maestros' shortfalls. Over the years, being a creature of the political class, she has lived her (and her family's) entire lives off the taxpayer's dime. All her and her husband's speaking fees from colleges are added in that taxpayer's dime. She has milked this great country for every penny, scraped off every shred of goodwill she could get and deserves to go down in flames in November 2016, that is if an act of God doesn't swoop in and deny her the nomination

(3)(0)

Disqus_JJkzXKOeL3says:

June 5, 2015 at 5:45 am

I'll never forget a story I heard a few years back about Hillary regarding her time as First Lady of Arkansas. She was attending a Razorbacks game with a close friend when an elderly lady approached them and handed Hillary a gift - it was a pair of Razorback homemade earrings. (I'm sure they were a bit kitschy but...)The elderly lady carried on how she made them especially for Hillary, how she loved both Bill and Hillary and was so lucky to see Hillary at the game so she could gift them in person. While the woman was still present, Hillary turned to her friend and said "See what crap I have to put up with everyday in this state?" Apparently, Hillary was quite the consummate elitist even back then, surely embarrassed to be First Lady of such a backwoods "holler" Just imagine what that poor elderly woman thought. Hillary is as cold and calculating as they come.

(3)(0)

Disqus_PK9xq9sw4psays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:16 am

Can't imagine Sanders doing that...

(1)(0)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:50 am

Sort of explains Hilliary's latest faux pas of telling a supporter to "go to the back of the line." when the poor lady wanted her autograph.

(0)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 11:35 am

It's just the latest example of what lies beneath that plastered-on smile.

(0)(0)

Roberthelbingsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:44 am

This article is all about identity politics. Non-whites got their own Chief Executive; Jews deserve one, but they'll have to wait because this time around we're gonna get us a woman President.

What about quality? What about character? What about ability? What about integrity? What about goals, achievements, vision? All secondary (or tertiary, or even further down the priority list).

It shouldn't be about WHAT someone is, but WHO they will be once elected. They need to be the best possible President for America, regardless of where their ancestors came from or which floor at the department store they go to when they need to buy underwear.

The whole point of feminism is to empower women as equals to men. So judge Hillary as you would judge any male candidate. She needs to earn your vote, just like anyone else.

(4)(0)

10th_Regiment_Footsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:33 am

Wow... with all the major problems this country faces... terrorism... economy dead... permanent underclass... education failing...

...all this woman can see is a chance for America "to not be so far behind" by electing 'another woman'?

is there any kind of 'brain' left in American feminist movement?
HB

(5)(0)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:38 am

Yes, but they are on the Republican side. Rice, Fiorina, Halley, etc.

(2)(1)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 6, 2015 at 6:11 am

RICE??? FIORINA??? Do you mean Nikki Haley? I almost can see Haley in a way. The other two? Not. Who are your et ceteras?

(0)(0)

JimmyCorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:26 am

I do not know where to begin, I am dumbfounded and I could probably write a book in response to this article. It is fascinating how "progressives" care about color, creed and gender above all else and then point at anyone who doesn't share their beliefs and defame them as racist or sexist or anti-whatever. Are you really more worried about the leader of your nation's sex or race then say their ability to lead or be trusted? You call the U.S.A. backwards nation because of a lack of female candidates (suitable to your political persuasion) in the shadow of countries who have female presidents. Should we strive to be more like South America where Women President's are more common, along with corruption, poverty and crime, not to mention the tremendous wealth gaps? You should take a moment and explore your logic because it is seriously flawed.

(7)(1)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:36 am

There is ISIS out there; Russian expansionism, China's military build up and Hillary and her Dems are more concerned about global warming and bogus income equality, etc
If elected Hillary would be a sheep among wolves in the international stage. Excuse me, I should say 'ewe' (must be PC); we already have a sheep in the White House.

(1)(2)

Disqus_PK9xq9sw4psays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:42 am

Are you saying that income inequality is "bogus"? (There are people who don't believe in climate change either...)

(2)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 11:17 am

You mean the income inequality that's now higher than it's been since the 20's after 7 years of Obama? That income inequality?

(2)(0)

Harrymallorysays:

June 5, 2015 at 10:23 am

Thats because observed temperatures do not match any of the alarmist predictions. That was the only thing that the ideology approved alarmist had that they could say proves man made carbon will kill everybody unless we give our earnings and freedoms to our politicians...Oh, that and about a half-dozen predictions that have failed to come true.

(0)(1)

1Citizen23says:

June 5, 2015 at 5:22 am

Yes, we should elect a qualified woman to be President. However, Hillary is jus too old and spent ... let's instead recruit her for the Space Cowgirls movie paid for by the Clinton Foundation ... standing next to most of the other way-younger articulate and charismatic candidates during debates will make her look like she needs some in home support services help. Remember how McCain looked standing next to Obama? Well, Hillary is the new McCain, except McCain looked in much better physical condition than Hillary looks today. She is just too old. Let's find another candidate.

(1)(1)

Disqus_KlcGrad0sBsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:15 am

Isn't that just precious. Not much on what Hillary would do. Just the self esteem building makes it all worth it, eh?

(3)(0)

Penguinisays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:11 am

IGNORE THE TROLLS...don't fall for it...oh, too late.

I do not trust Hillary Clinton to maintain any progressive policies if she wins the election, unless a large bloc of feminist/progressive/populists are elected to Congress to keep her honest.
Still...and I feel foolish even thinking this way...if it comes down to Clinton or any of the GOP crackpots now in the race, and it seems close...oh I hate to write this...I'll vote for her, very reluctantly.

(1)(1)

Disqus_PK9xq9sw4psays:

June 5, 2015 at 10:34 am

And all the HRC supporters will vote for Sanders after he wins the nomination.

(1)(0)

10th_Regiment_Footsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:34 am

Don't you love your country?

Just a little bit?
HB

(2)(0)

Disqus_XJgwDi6B7nsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:07 am

I always voted Penis, myself. Then in 2008 I voted for Blackness. And listening to the Grio parade on MSNBC, I've realize that Black Obama has accomplished enough to keep Black Americans thankful for years to come.

So after patting myself on the back for playing my part in history, Katha's analysis convinces me that it's time to Vote Vagina.

(2)(1)

Sophiectsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:00 am

Excellent points. I am excited and determined. It is time and Hillary is exceptionally qualified. Let's git 'er done!

(0)(1)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:13 am

"Exceptionally qualified"-- in what, exactly? Stonewalling the press? Covering her tracks? Marrying into power? Lying? Using public service jobs for massive personal enrichments?

So many qualifications...

(2)(0)

Sophiectsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:18 am

So sorry for you--GOP is toast and you have no where to go. Take your 2016 sadz to a right wing site and cry in each other's beers.

(0)(1)

Disqus_PK9xq9sw4psays:

June 5, 2015 at 10:36 am

It's possible to disapprove of HRC without being a Republican...

(2)(1)

Sophiectsays:

June 6, 2015 at 10:57 pm

Yes it is. And it's also possible to disapprove without being repulsive and completely devoid of facts, but your sockpuppet couldn't seem to pull it off, likely because he is GOP.

(0)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 12:16 pm

Very true, it's even possible to disapprove of democrats without being a republican.

(0)(1)

Pattywoosays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:26 am

countries paying grease to the Clintons while their business is up for review by Hillarie state dept...yea..shes for sale

(1)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:06 am

Uhuh-- just like the last ten times we heard about the upcoming "40-year reign of liberal dominance".

For the record I'm a lifelong independent that voted for Clinton twice and against Bush twice, and if, for once, the GOP manages to put forth a candidate I can actually support without reservation-- I'll put a bullet in my own head before I become a juvenile, hero-worshipping tribalist taunting opponents and waving pompoms like you.

I bet back in 2007 your car was covered with rebellious-sounding bumper-stickers-- "Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism!", "Question Authority!", "Speak Truth to Power".

Funny how all it took was one election for all that rebel-without-a-cause stuff to become pompom-waving cheerleaders/kneepad-wearing fluff-girls to those in power-- as long as they have a "D" next to their name.

(2)(0)

10th_Regiment_Footsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:35 am

Are you kidding? Do you read anything? Watch anything?

But please don't change... makes it easier for us conservative come November 2016.
HB

(3)(0)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:25 am

And I suppose you will cry in your wine, sophie come 2016.

(1)(0)

Gmantxsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:00 am

You poor thing feeling you had to write such a banal article. Get off the Clinton teat, please. Or at least relieve us all and tell us this was full on sarcasm.

(4)(0)

Disqus_x8PGKMtEY6says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:58 am

Supporting and voting for a person just because they are female, black, hispanic, purple, white, male, transgendered, or whatever, is about as stupid as one can get. But why am I not surprised by this liberal? H Clinton as Secty of State was incompetent. Worse, she is a crook of some magnitude -- witness the scandal of the Clinton Foundation cash machine funding her political ambitions and personally enriching her and her husband and their friends and supporters. But go ahead, vote for her. She's a woman.

(4)(0)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:55 am

Just for speculation let's suppose the 2016 GOP ticket is Condi Rice and Marco Rubio (or vice versa); just how will the Clinton/ ? ticket and DNC confront it?
Note that the GOP ticket will appeal to Blacks, women and Hispanics. Will Clinton and the DNC take the high or low road?

(0)(0)

Disqus_PK9xq9sw4psays:

June 5, 2015 at 10:36 am

Sanders will trounce them.

(1)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 12:18 pm

Yes, America is fairly dying to elect a 70-something socialist as leader of the free world.

(0)(1)

Thelionsidesays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:52 am

The best thing Hillary can do for our country is -- get out of BERNIE's way

(6)(0)

Disqus_PK9xq9sw4psays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:50 am

How many people will vote for HRC in November who wouldn't vote for Sanders? There are some people who'll vote for Sanders who otherwise wouldn't vote at all! If you don't like non-voters, give people someone to vote for.

(1)(0)

Thelionsidesays:

June 5, 2015 at 8:11 am

I mean, I love it! -- what an intriguing pov. Makes sense, too. Bernie's so real & unpretentious. All we need is voters *willing to Google the propaganda wars

(1)(0)

Etherbunnysays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:49 am

Bernie's a feminist, too. And, nobody owns him.

(1)(0)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:01 am

Feminist? Why sure. Imagine a 2016 ticket of Sanders/Jenner '16

(1)(1)

Etherbunnysays:

June 6, 2015 at 2:52 am

Jenner is NOT.

(1)(0)

Robertcattsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:40 am

She is running as the person she really is, bossy, over the hill, out of shape, miserable know it all hag.

(2)(0)

Disqus_yyX2Mvf4Tdsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:42 am

I agree Robert, out of shape, out of touch and delusional . I've asked PennyRoyal to list any achievement and there is no response. Amazing that libs would vote for her

(1)(0)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:45 am

Not really amazing for liberal lemmings.

(1)(1)

Disqus_yyX2Mvf4Tdsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:38 am

If you want a women as President vote for Carly Fiorena. She has good qualifications....at least as good as Obama. She's a women so that fits your criteria.

(3)(1)

Disqus_PK9xq9sw4psays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:11 am

Don't forget Jill Stein!

(2)(0)

John_webstersays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:38 am

This endorsement is pure identity politics. If a man with Hillary's views and record were running, Ms. Pollitt would excoriate him as right-wing and not a true Democrat.

(7)(0)

Disqus_yyX2Mvf4Tdsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:33 am

Is it Russia or Iraq or Afghanistan or Benghazi or Syria or any of the Clinton foundation deals with foreign governments . Perhaps it was Libya. Oh, wait a minute, it was Israel. She and Obama turned their backs on our best friends.

(1)(1)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:32 am

"I owe nothing to Women's Lib." - Margaret Thatcher

(1)(0)

Disqus_yyX2Mvf4Tdsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:30 am

Can someone please list Clinton's accomplishments as sec of state.

(2)(0)

Tomcivilettisays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:21 am

Ms. Pollitt illustrates how feminism can serve the oligarchs.

(6)(0)

Lokicat3says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:22 am

come on, she's smarter and more committed than that.

(1)(1)

Disqus_PK9xq9sw4psays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:50 am

Or at least she should be...

(1)(0)

Tomcivilettisays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:25 am

She is what she is. I am concerned with presidents, not Nation writers.

(1)(0)

Disqus_Y6WHZaAmUfsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:18 am

My values are for the Planet and the environment so I cannot vote for her, woman or not. She has a major allegiance to Monsanto, GMOs, the current Trade fiasco, Oil barons and other things. Never from her lips will you hear anything (or true) about her concern for the Planet. And to be honest, nothing matters if we are dead so.....I was disappointed when I found these things out about her no matter what her "other" assets may appear to be, I cannot vote Third Way political or Blue Dog. We are out of time.

(7)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:35 am

Please look at Bernie Sanders' record and listen to what he's saying now. He's running as a Democrat. He is right for the time and for the job. I'm thinking if he got the nod he might choose Elizabeth Warren as his running mate. Is that a dream team or what? She would get on-the-job training and he would have a fine backup. Please stop thinking that there is no choice. Get working for Sanders. Please. I'm in the same boat as you are. I voted for Obama. Second time, vote straight Green ticket. I don't want the same thing to happen to me this time. Vote for Sanders. Please.

(1)(0)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:40 am

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." - Margaret Thatcher

You can keep the change please.

(1)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:42 am

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.

Capitalism's inherent flaw is the unequal sharing of prosperity while socialism's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

--Winston Churchill

(2)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:12 am

Wow! You listen fast! Heard all Bernie has to say between now and when I answered MM Smith. Good on ya! ;D

(0)(0)

Lokicat3says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:21 am

do you think any of the anti-hillary commenters here care a bit about the environment. At the very least don't vote for the denialist Republicans as they crusade to save the poor CEOs and billionaires.

(1)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:45 am

I hear they also enjoy kicking puppies and they kidnap children off the streets to bake them in pies!

...or maybe that was the Jews. I can never keep the details of mindless, hate-based, kneejerk-tribalist propaganda straight.

(2)(1)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:14 am

I care deeply for the environment and for the welfare of women and children here and abroad. But so does Bernie Sanders. Really. He stands for women's rights. He wants EVERYONE to have education. I think you might be surprised at the difference.

(0)(0)

Grovermcdoodlesays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:02 pm

Good lord lady. Give it a rest. You're layin down a lot 'o crazy. Are you Bernie's stalker? It's gettin a little weird.

(0)(1)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 7, 2015 at 11:22 am

You think enthusiasm for a candidate when there is a danger than another candidate who is much less qualified will be chosen—yet again—is stalking the candidate? You are very very um different Grover ol' buddy. Very different indeed.

(0)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 6, 2015 at 6:18 am

You seem to see stalking in forthright admiration. How interesting.

(0)(0)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:30 am

"I know a lot of people who are educated far beyond their intelligence." - Lewis Grizzard
I guess Sen. Sanders wants us to subsidize others college education.
We already have a public school system that 'educates' everyone or have you heard?

(0)(1)

Disqus_PK9xq9sw4psays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:01 am

What's YOUR solution to the college debt problem?

(1)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:06 am

The democrats have already offered their "solution"-- raise taxes, subsidize it and allow the colleges to keep raising tuition.

Problem solved-- as long as you work at a college.

(0)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 6, 2015 at 10:47 am

Dear Mr. Theinfuriator: You don't seem to understand that a real democratic socialist like Sanders would never want to raise the taxes of the people who are already taxed to the max. He and his ilk (of which I am an admirer) would on the other hand want to tax the people who would never even miss it but get all the benefits taxes buy without paying for them in the same proportion the rest of us do. That is not fair. Sanders sees that and wants to stop it. We wouldn't pay a dime more in taxes. As a matter of fact if the top 1% paid their fair share our taxes would probably go down.

As for free state college? What benefits would come from really smart but poor kids that can't afford it now but could go to college if they didn't have to go into such hideous debt to do it. I would have finished grad school myself back in the 60s. As it was it took me nearly four years to pay for the two years I had to borrow for—and that was when the interest was 3%.

I'm sorry to go on and on. I'm also sorry that I have given in to snark here on this board. I should have just ignored your digs.

Thanks for reading—if you got this far.

(0)(0)

MBeifongsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:15 am

How do you suppose a President Hillary will be regarded 100 years from now--as one of the Top Ten Presidents in US History, say, or as the First Woman president? How about Barak Obama--same question: Top Ten or First Black? I'm just wondering how many ethnic/gender/cultural identities we have to wade through before we get back to focusing on who is best qualified to lead the most successful democracy in the entire world. I figure that would be somewhere around 2464, after the First Japanese Lesbian Jehovah's Witness steps down.

(3)(0)

Lokicat3says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:19 am

Obama will be remembered as a calm and steady president who achieved much (ACA, rapprochement/nuclear deal with Iran, reigned in a witless republican congress with an addiction to shutting the government down). That's for starters. MB, I do think you hate anyone non-male and non-white. Admit it.

(1)(1)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:50 am

I'm sorry but your race-card has been denied due to gross overuse.

(0)(0)

Natyliebaldwinsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:48 am

Obama will be remembered for extra-judicial assassination of American citizens by drone, justifying NSA spying, prosecuting more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined, trying to ram through top secret corporate-whoring trade deals, and bombing 7 countries (hey, Bush only did 4).

By the way, I'm a woman, a Green, I hated Bush, and I voted for Obama the first time...before I realized he betrayed just about everything he promised the American people he would stand for.

I'll be waiting to hear your substantive response to the legitimate points raised in this post rather than evasive comments or ad hominem attacks.

(6)(0)

Harlancountysays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:26 am

I started this new thread about Hillary, I was wondering if you would add some class to the discussion? https://disqus.com/home/channel/squid/discussion/channel-squid/ask_your_neighbor_why_is_hillary_clinton_such_a_war_hawk/

(0)(0)

MBeifongsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:23 am

The author here writes "...Hillary will be the first woman president—and that is important." My point is, that is way not important. There is too much going on choose a leader based on gender identity, or racial identity, or anything other than actual qualifications for what is a very big job.

(3)(0)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:21 am

Actually, penny, Pres. Obama has two major accomplishments to his credit:
1. He makes Carter look competent
and
2. He makes Nixon look honest

(2)(1)

Lokicat3says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:22 am

you are suffering from false memory syndrome implanted in your brain by Fox News.

(1)(0)

Ericchristensays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:14 am

I will not be voting for Monica Lewinsky's ex-boy friends wife, aka "The Enabler." (And neither will my wife who is a highly educated Air Force squadron commander and mother of three who finds women like hillary as offensive as they are archaic.)

(5)(1)

Disqus_PK9xq9sw4psays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:12 am

Will you consider voting for Sanders?

(1)(0)

Lokicat3says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:19 am

and how many millions do you give to the RNC?

(0)(1)

Floydrturbotsays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:27 am

Not too many military families have the wherewithal to donate "millions" to anyone.

(2)(0)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:35 am

Gee penny, I didn't know you had connections with the IRS. How do you know Mr. Christen has 'millions'?
You buddy's with Lois Lerner?

(2)(0)

TheSkipper1says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:34 am

Probably far less than the convicted currency manipulator George (I was a Nazi supporter) Soros who gives hundreds of millions to the Democrats...

(2)(0)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:36 am

and maybe pays penny to troll here.

(2)(0)

Disqus_Fz3OOZy03hsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:11 am

Try using capitalization and an open mind. Just because you support Clinton for president doesn't mean everyone else has to. There are presidential hopefuls running that are not thieves or murderers and they are the ones that should get the votes!

(5)(1)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:09 am

Bernie Sanders.

(0)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:48 am

But he's an old white man. Haven't you heard their time has passed?

(0)(1)

Disqus_PK9xq9sw4psays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:12 am

Tell it to his Millennial supporters!

(1)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 11:42 am

The young are always the most reliable supporters of socialism-- they simply don't know any better.

Besides, I'm just passing on what so many progressives have said so many times. It's the "good" kind of racism and sexism-- the fashionable kind.

(0)(1)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:41 am

NOPE

(0)(0)

Disqus_0veJvPAOo5says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:03 am

Hillary is not a feminist. Everything she has came from the man she married for just that purpose. She has done nothing on her own. She is the very antithesis of a feminist, even allowing herself to be humiliated on the world stage to fulfill her political ambitions. Even if I knew nothing else about her, the fact that she looked into the eyes of a woman who had lost her only child and lied to her tells me all I need to know.

(10)(1)

Cordel43says:

June 6, 2015 at 4:09 am

Seriously? Yes, she decided when young, having the awareness that women don't get as far as men, to support her husband's political career, instead of pursuing her own. I doubt very much if he would have gotten as far, or done as much, had he been married to a Stepford wife, lacking Hillary's brilliance, law degree, political experience. The two of them worked as a team. He had the silver tongue, but a lot of the brilliance in that couple was hers.

(2)(0)

Disqus_0veJvPAOo5says:

June 6, 2015 at 6:14 am

Twaddle.

(2)(0)

Lokicat3says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:09 am

trust me, she's a feminist. She and Obama stand four-square in favor of women's reproductive rights. I'm proud to stand with them both on this.

(2)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 7, 2015 at 10:02 am

And we should trust you because....

(0)(0)

Cordel43says:

June 6, 2015 at 4:10 am

She is a feminist in all the right ways.

(0)(1)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 7, 2015 at 10:03 am

So what are "all the right ways" and how do you define "right"?

(0)(0)

Mwayne09says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:11 am

what about the rights of the unborn ?
You dont believe they have rights too ?

(3)(0)

Lokicat3says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:12 am

not getting into that nonsense with a zealot.

(3)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:48 am

"Not getting into nonsense with a zealot!!" shouted the zealot.

(2)(0)

Mwayne09says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:12 am

I'll take that as a surrender . Thanks.

(5)(1)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:15 am

Touche!

(1)(1)

Mwayne09says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:09 am

bingo

(4)(1)

BearX220says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:03 am

Suppose your best friend is engaged to an abusive, violent, philandering, ethically challenged, white-collar criminal. You ask her why. She says: "Three reasons I'm excited about marrying this guy. One, he asked me, and nobody ever asked me before; he'll be my first husband. Two, he makes a lot of money, so he's my best shot at high social status. And three, when he's not robbing, lying, cheating, or hitting me, he says he shares my values."

Would that be enough? Because that's how Ms. Pollitt's arguments sound.

(7)(1)

TheSkipper1says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:02 am

Why anyone takes this miscreant grifter and washed up political hack seriously is beyond me...come on Dems, you can do better than "That 90s Show" reruns, can't you?

This Wo-is-me-man, still married to a money grubbing womanizing serial predator, has enriched herself immensely, not by creating anything of value or a valuable service, but simply by blowing warm vapid air through her obnoxious pie hole in front of rich donors, foreign despots, and moronic college kids who stare catatonic while she verbally tosses them promises of more Government swag like a soused float rider at Mardi Gras tossing beads to screaming drunken grovelling bystanders...or by attaching her name to ghost written books that bring the level of ponderous trivial trite to new lows of mediocrity...frankly only a Village Idiot would ever actually read them...she is nothing more than a shrill narcissistic Machiavellian political p:mp who surrounds herself with stupid swooning slobbering boot licking sycophants (mostly the press and Stephanopoulis) who praise her every idiotic pronouncement...

All hail the Chauncey Gardiner of our time come to life, a tiresome, superficial, snarky, blathering, Henpeck! of a nag cloaked in a hideous wide-track pantsuit obviously purloined from a North Korean state run department store bargain basement in the dead of night.

She! is nothing more than a conniving scammer who roams the world with her mandible open and hand out, holding a giant tin cup with "Clinton! Initiative" printed on the side and a few million in "donations" rattling around inside...

Hillary! is the epitome of an obnoxious lush who won't shut up and go away...in a campaign world gone mad, she remains the undisputed winner of the titles "America's Mother in Law" and "America's Ex-Wife"...

(4)(1)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:06 am

Okay. Okay. Now that you have highlighted Hillary's positives; what about her negatives?
:)

(1)(1)

Lokicat3says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:08 am

oh, I have your modus operandi, jessefan: snide, sarcasm, and assassinate the only decent candidate in this election cycle, (besides Sanders and now Chafee ).

(0)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 7, 2015 at 11:32 am

So, please change your allegiance. Unless you're Chelsea, I don't understand why you are so ardent about this woman.

(0)(0)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:13 am

"..snide, sarcasm, and assassinate the only decent candidate...". Yes, I must give credit to my internship at the DailyKos.
:)

(1)(1)

TheSkipper1says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:11 am

The truth about Her! hurts, doesn't it?

(1)(2)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:14 am

Methinks penny hath thin skin.
Good.

(1)(2)

Lokicat3says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:16 am

at least I have skin and am not hidebound in my thinking

(1)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 11:47 am

No-- much like modern academia, or the average MSNBC staffer, you've proven you're open to all viewpoints, from the left to the far left.

(0)(0)

TheSkipper1says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:31 am

Neither am I...however, the entire Democrat party is hidebound in their blind endorsement of She!

(1)(0)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:22 am

Think again.

(1)(0)

Disqus_Fz3OOZy03hsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:00 am

Katha Pollit you are TOTALLY INSANE!!!!!!! Hillary Clinton is a liar,thief and MURDERER!!!!! How can you want her in office so she can really suck the country dry? Woman president-Overdue. Hillary Clinton NOT YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(4)(1)

Lokicat3says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:01 am

said the person with all caps who undercuts her credibility by 'screamers'.

(1)(2)

Michael5186says:

June 5, 2015 at 3:53 am

Hey Katha, are you also aroused that Hillary is running, or just merely excited?

(0)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:14 am

Hitting below the belt. Foul!

(0)(0)

Jamesstaggsays:

June 5, 2015 at 3:53 am

Foolish, foolish, foolish. Only a radical feminist could come up with this crap.

(6)(2)

Lokicat3says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:05 am

you are so scared witless that a woman might be president!! The pant-wetters will be working overtime to prevent her election for the next 18 months.

(1)(2)

Disqus_PK9xq9sw4psays:

June 5, 2015 at 7:06 am

Actually, I'm scared that Mrs. Clinton will win the nomination because she's more "electable" than Sanders, than lose in November. Like John Kerry in 2004.

IMHO the most electable candidate is the one who can get the most people to vote for him/her. So enthusiasm DOES matter, and Sanders is generating it in spades!

(3)(0)

Jamesstaggsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:48 am

I am scared witless that the most obscene excuse for a feminist might play on your fears and hopes to the extent you will ignore her murderous, criminal and traitorous activities and actually vote for her.

(4)(0)

Natyliebaldwinsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:42 am

I'm not referring to James Stagg's comment, but why don't you try a substantive response to some of the very reasonable critiques of this article instead of making remarks that either evade or amount to ad hominem attacks?

(3)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:45 am

What she said. ^^^

(3)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:59 am

Ditto.

(1)(0)

DavidL2525says:

June 5, 2015 at 3:52 am

What are HIllary's accomplishments that make her suitable for the Presidency?

Ummmm, she has a vagina........I think.

(4)(1)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 3:51 am

"The Clintons are creeps and liars and scoundrels and misfits, always have been, always will be. They are the penicillin-resistant syphilis of American politics." -Kevin Williamson

I don't see how anyone could possibly be excited about a soon-to-be octogenarian that, together with her husband, make Frank and Clarie Underwood look positively angelic.

(1)(1)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 7, 2015 at 12:30 pm

You are aware that an Octogenarian is always 80 years old, not 70? Ms. Clinton, for whom I would not vote if she were 37, will be 69 years of age at the time of the next Innauguration. So she is if any age is to be spoken of she would be approaching 70, an age qualifying her as a Septuagenarian at that time. Sorry to be picky. But no sense aging her by 10 years.

(0)(0)

Disqus_unutbQZFyNsays:

June 5, 2015 at 3:49 am

I guess if I was born with 3 legs and a 3-legged person was running for President, I'd vote him or her.

We are after all tribal. That's why Democrats don't like Republicans, and vice versa -- even though we basically agree on everything, and as George Will pointed out, all socialists.

But since we are all the same, we can elect Barack or Hilary or even Ted Cruz and things will be the same.

(0)(2)

Mwayne09says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:00 am

Can I have my 20 seconds back . What a waste of time.

(1)(0)

Disqus_unutbQZFyNsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:02 am

well i'm saying that women will vote for Hillary because she is a woman -- and I guess I'm making fun of that, in an albeit boring way

(0)(1)

Disqus_PK9xq9sw4psays:

June 5, 2015 at 10:40 am

Not THAT many women...

(1)(0)

Lokicat3says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:14 am

what a simpleton comment, insulting to women. I know hundreds of woman and they all take great care when choosing a candidate.

(0)(0)

Disqus_PK9xq9sw4psays:

June 5, 2015 at 10:40 am

And a lot of them are going to choose Bernie Sanders!

(1)(0)

Mwayne09says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:08 am

thats better . for my simple mind. Thanks.

(1)(0)

Adriennebaksasays:

June 5, 2015 at 3:43 am

Yes, I am a long-standing feminist, and it's good to see a woman in high office. But certainly not at the expense of doing the right thing. What on earth could have happened to Hillary that she's completely sold out to Monsanto? She has taken millions (make that billions) from lobbying, which completely corrupts her integrity - in my view she's absolutely fully bought and paid for. GMO labeling, she's against it. Vaccines, she's for them being forced The list is long. At one time, she may have been good news. She is now horrible news. I will give my full support to Bernie Sanders - his values and courage will indeed help correct some of the problems that exist. Hillary is sadly simply more of the same. Let's get behind Bernie Sanders and really make some needed changes. He'll do them. She won't.

(3)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:08 am

Wish I could vote you "up" twice—or more! You are so so so right!

(0)(0)

Beefwellingtonsays:

June 5, 2015 at 3:39 am

All your arguments in favor of Hillary are based on just symbolic value. None of them have anything to do with any historical action Hillary has taken, or specific policy proposals that she supports.

Let’s look at all three of your main points.

“First, I’m excited about beating the Republicans, and she’s the best candidate for that job”

True, but she is only going to beat the Republicans by acting exactly like the Republicans. So what’s the point?

As opposed to real Progressives like Bernie Sanders, who receives his backing from small donors and labor unions, Hillary’s top donors include Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Morgan
Stanley, and Merrill Lynch. We always hear about Koch brothers taking over the Republican party – but we always seem to forget about the big banks have taken over both political parties.

Sure, Hillary may be in favor of some social issues like abortion rights, gun control, or gay marriage. But those aren’t the most pressing issues of our time. We need a candidate that has the guts to tackle climate change, and the growing economic inequality – both issues
that needs to be addressed now before it gets worse. But if Hillary is going to run a campaign that’s funded by the very big banks that caused the financial crisis in 2008 and lobbying firms like McGuireWoods that represents Exxon Mobil and the Natural Gas Alliance, we can be certain that she isn’t going to do anything to regulate Wall Street or reduce our CO2 emissions.

“Second, Hillary will be the first woman president—and that is important […] To those who say a woman president is only symbolic, I say symbols matter—and who’s to say it will stop there? It’s
hard to imagine having the #BlackLivesMatter conversation without Obama in the White House. Maybe Hillary will change the discourse in a similar way.”

I dare you to say that to the core leaders of the #BlackLivesMatter movement in Ferguson or Baltimore. If you actually talk to those protestors on the ground, you will quickly find out how disappointed they are with the Obama administration. They didn’t start protests because they had someone that looked like them in the White House. They are protesting because they can’t breath. The level of stress that the police force have imposed on the black community has become unbearable. The constant harassment and surveillance has put their lives in a constant fear mode, that they can’t take it anymore.

So don’t credit Obama with the protests that have been occurring in Ferguson or Baltimore. That credit should only go to the young black activists in the #BlackLivesMatter movement, with the brave courage to stand up to the police state.

“Third, Hillary is a feminist and is running as one”

This is a great insult to real feminists everywhere. Feminism has always been in opposition to the cult of masculinity and violence that plagues this country’s obsession with war and the military. And Hillary’s record as a Secretary of State clearly show that she was a much bigger war monger than Obama – who is bad enough with his drone campaign, mind you.

As Secretary of State, Hillary was the driving force against the intervention in Libya, which has now become a failed
state. According to her own recent autobiography, Hard Choices, she argues for more intervention and military involvement in Syria. And in 2007, she threatened Iran, saying, “I want the Iranians to know that if I am president, that we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, if they foolishly consider laughing an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.” And of course, lets now forget of her “Yes” vote in favor of the invasion of Iraq, which was without a doubt, the greatest military miscalculation in U.S history, leaving
hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead.

I honestly don’t know what you are excited about. Hillary is just
going to be more of the same. She is a pawn of the corporate elite just like every other president in the last 30
years.

(4)(0)

Disqus_2n90rDFs3zsays:

June 5, 2015 at 3:39 am

As Secretary of State, Ms. Rodham was held on a tight leash by The White House / Valerie Jarrett; an assessment of her performance is difficult.

(0)(1)

Mwayne09says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:03 am

Wait......if you think long enough, maybe you can get a blame Bush in there too. We'll wait.

(2)(0)

Lokicat3says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:15 am

He started an unnecessary war and kicked the hornet's next. ISIS is the result.

(1)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:09 am

ISIS? They're just the JV Team. That's why Obama handed Iraq to them by pulling out without a SOF agreement or enough troops to keep the peace.

(0)(1)

Lokicat3says:

June 5, 2015 at 3:42 am

Ms Jarrett is competent and ethical and unfairly maligned.

(0)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:10 am

"Ethical", priceless. Yea, there's nothing more "ethical" than winning your Senate seat by getting friendly media members to unseal and then leak your opponent's private divorce records-- using this slimy tactic TWICE-- against both his democratic primary opponent AND his republican general election opponent. Valerie & Barack have ethics in spades.

You tribalists slay me.

(0)(0)

DavidL2525says:

June 5, 2015 at 3:57 am

Is that you Valerie?!??!?

(2)(1)

Lokicat3says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:26 am

snideness wins no points

(0)(0)

Jessefaninchapelhillsays:

June 5, 2015 at 3:47 am

:)
Really?

(1)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 5, 2015 at 3:32 am

NO!! HILLARY IS NOT SPEAKING FOR ALL WOMEN. I AM A WOMAN AND SHE DOESN'T SPEAK FOR ME. BERNIE SANDERS speaks for all PEOPLE and that is what is important. If we don't speak for everybody—women, children, and men, of all races—we are just continuing to segregate society. Every person in this country is important. What we need is not more sexism of a different kind. What we need is less privilege for the .001% and more fairness to those who struggle to keep their heads above water, feed their kids, get an education, and just live a decent life. Listen to what Bernie is saying. Listen really hard. Then look at what he has done, how he has voted. It matches. That's rare. Remember: NOBODY NEEDS GAZILLIONS OF DOLLARS THEY COULDN'T SPEND IN 40+ LIFETIMES.

(38)(1)

Thenation-5696c78328b257183e3a23a3aa1f5037says:

June 7, 2015 at 7:10 am

So women are not permitted to speak unless they are speaking for all, for other people? And you say that NOT sexism?

(0)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 7, 2015 at 9:09 am

Huh?

(0)(0)

Disqus_wtK6PIeucbsays:

June 7, 2015 at 3:29 am

Hillary and Bill have parlayed government service into a billion dollar "foundation" which spends a shockingly small token amount on charities, and correspondingly shocking amount on expenses.

She is the 0.000001% you claim to despise.

(3)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 7, 2015 at 9:00 am

You are correct, and I will NOT be voting for this woman. I voted for Bill—and Obama—the first time. For both, when they ran for their second terms, I voted a splinter radical party. Hillary has already shown her colors. I will be voting for Bernie in the primary and if he doesn't win it, I will again vote another party as radical and green as I can find.

(2)(0)

AnthonyLooksays:

June 6, 2015 at 10:50 am

Bernie Sanders supporters need to take a lesson from his candidacy and understand the reason he decided to run as a Democrat. Focus on the Republicans. I support Sanders, but he knows as well as everyone else; that he is not going to get the nomination. He is in it for the run knowing his insight and points of discussion will elevate the discourse of the primary campaign and bring serious issues into the discussion. His contribution and his intent all along is to address important issues that otherwise would not be addressed. He is giving his all for America, great man. Sensible man.

(3)(0)

Akosmsays:

June 6, 2015 at 12:35 pm

Will you vote for him then? Here is an argument why you should, within your own assumption. If you vote for him - and others who assume similarly then and only then will he get enough votes to have an effect.
Hey but here is the trick if everybody would think like this then he might even get the nomination.

(2)(0)

AnthonyLooksays:

June 6, 2015 at 4:15 pm

I am voting for Sanders in the Primary, but intend to vote for Hillary in the general election. I am hoping Sanders lands a position in Hillary' Administration (as I hope Elizabeth Warren gets asked as well). In all honesty I would more wish and hope that both Sanders and Warren end up nominated for Supreme Court Justices-- that would be amazing.

(1)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 6, 2015 at 10:38 pm

Say all democrats vote for Sanders in the primary, how can we then vote for Hillary in the general? I'm hoping there won't be the opportunity to vote for her in the general! ;D No matter, I won't vote for her for any reason. I will just write in Bernie if she's the "chosen" one.

(3)(0)

Pattymacdonellsays:

June 7, 2015 at 2:03 am

That's what I am thinking. I'll vote for Clinton if I have to.

(1)(0)

AnthonyLooksays:

June 6, 2015 at 11:27 pm

Sanders is a man ahead of his time. Sanders will not get all Democrat votes. Sanders will not win the Democratic Primary. Don't minimize what his intention is for putting himself into this process. He will elevate the discussion----- that is really what he is doing. Sanders knows he will not win. So he is offering his best to Americans voters.

(1)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 7, 2015 at 2:22 am

He especially won't win if everybody thinks he won't and doesn't support him. That's what dangerous about not voting for the best candidate but only voting to "win". That mindset is what I'm fighting against right now. Vote for the best candidate. The best candidate is Bernie Sanders. If everyone votes for the best candidate, Bernie will win. Simple logic. All we have to do is convince a lot of people that Bernie is running for us and Hillary is running for herself, no matter what women think. Just because she is a woman doesn't mean she is for the people or even for women particularly. Personally, I think she is for Hillary and maybe her daughter, but not for us except as a vehicle for her ride to victory. Well, I don't want to be a part of that vehicle. If Bernie isn't the Dem candidate, I will write him in. I won't vote for somebody who doesn't give a hoot for the people except as a vehicle for a ride to wealth and success.

(0)(0)

AnthonyLooksays:

June 7, 2015 at 3:59 am

Hillary just running for herself. You shame supporters of Sanders with your lame words.

(0)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 7, 2015 at 9:07 am

I'm not sure how I can possibly be shaming Sanders. I think he is the only person who is fit for the job among all hopefuls in all parties. How do I seem to be shaming him? Please tell me so I can stop it instantly—as well as go back and change it! I'm very serious. If he doesn't win the primary, I will still write him in in the general. I support him with everything I am and have. I think he's may be the only genuine patriot in the entire congress. Please tell me how I made you think I was shaming him.

(0)(0)

AnthonyLooksays:

June 8, 2015 at 12:53 pm

Actually, just keep being your arrogant nasty self; see how much you help out Sanders. You're doing wonderful.

(0)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 9, 2015 at 11:03 am

I'm failing to see why you are so upset with my support of Sanders. Do you work for Hillary? I am not pleased with the way the Clintons are handling themselves. I'm not backing down from that. I'm not pleased with the way Obama has worked out either. Why is that "arrogant and nasty". Do tell me. So far you haven't told me the answer to my question: How am I shaming Sanders? Specifics, please. I would appreciate it.

(0)(0)

AnthonyLooksays:

June 9, 2015 at 11:15 am

I think what you do is fine. I just am taking the lead by how Sanders himself is conducting himself when speaking about his opposition. Just be wary of those that if Sanders loses, they will try to sell Rand Paul to you.

(0)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 10, 2015 at 3:17 am

You say I'm being arrogant and nasty in your previous post to me and now you say you think what I do is fine? How in the world, even should some mysterious "they" try to sell Rand Paul to me, would you think that I would vote for him??? I agree with what Sanders is saying. He is the only candidate from any party with whom I agree 100%. Why would I want to vote for anyone else? I will write him in if necessary. Hillary will not get my vote. Everyone should vote for the person they truly want and respect, instead of voting to "win". You truly want Hillary. You have that privilege. I don't want Hillary. I have that privilege. If you think that is "arrogant and nasty" that is also your privilege. I think you are misguided—and that too, is my privilege.

(0)(0)

AnthonyLooksays:

June 10, 2015 at 3:24 am

Nasty troll do and speak as you want. You are not a Democrat.

(0)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 6, 2015 at 12:26 pm

I don't give up, period. I don't think Bernie does either, viz. his valient filibuster recently the full text of which you can find here: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/full-congressional-record-transcript-of-sanders-filibuster
That filibuster also gives you a pretty good insight into what the man thinks about taxes, just in the first couple paragraphs. I think he's in it to win it—not just to stir the pot. I personally would like to see him win with his vice-president being Elizabeth Warren. I will squeeze my wallet till it hollers to get that to happen. If not Ms. Warren? She IS needed in the Senate. I don't have a clue but Bernie undoubtedly has someone in mind. No. Bernie isn't going away and I'm so happy for that. Maybe Barney Frank.

(3)(0)

AnthonyLooksays:

June 6, 2015 at 4:07 pm

I am supporting Bernie Sanders during the primary; but I am voting for Hillary in the general election. I haven't yet but will donate the to Bernie Sanders campaign. I too would love to see Elizabeth Warren join Sanders or for that matter, even Clinton. At least she should be considered for an Administration post or Supreme Court Justice. Wishing up a dream team, will not make it come true. Sure Sanders is in it for the long haul; but he is a reasonable and good man (that is why he purposely chose to not run as a third party candidate--SO NOT TO SPLIT THE DEMOCRATS), and Mr. Sanders knows his value will be in the discussions during the debates. Don't minimize his intent; he knows he may not win, but he knows his input during the primary debate season is desperately necessary. He's a hero in my eyes especially more so because of this selfless primary endeavor. He is such a good man that he knows losing is not a point to consider; he is running to do the most good he can do for America and Americans. His mind, his spirit, his heart, his words are his genuine gift to us.

(2)(0)

Disqus_PK9xq9sw4psays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:41 am

Think that if people like Katha Pollitt ignore Sanders, he'll go away?

(1)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 5, 2015 at 2:25 pm

I sincerely doubt it!

(0)(0)

Disqus_Y6WHZaAmUfsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:09 am

Yes, Kelly. She does not speak for me (and I am strong, outspoken and hard working) because my values and sense of urgency is not put to ease by her associations and track record. And this is very unfortunate. Bernie has hit all of the notes for me. I share more with Sanders and I feel he might well bring Elizabeth with him. I have to vote my conscience. There is no longer two, six or ten years to urgently attempt to change some things. I am not going to confuse "wanting a woman" in the White House with "who actually addresses those issues with honesty, urgency and integrity.

(22)(0)

Disqus_PK9xq9sw4psays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:42 am

Beware the Emily's List school of thought.

(4)(1)

Fool_me_twice_shame_on_MEsays:

June 24, 2015 at 12:10 am

I agree. It's great that the organization supports getting more women into office, but they have a very low standard for those women to meet. Apparently they only require a woman have a vagina and a pro-choice position, rendering them irrelevant and useless to me. I'll send my contributions directly to the non-corporate candidates of my choice, thank you very much.

(3)(0)

Disqus_PK9xq9sw4psays:

June 5, 2015 at 10:22 am

This school of thought is that women as a group will somehow be "empowered" just because more women get into high office.

(8)(2)

Batteredupsays:

June 10, 2015 at 11:55 pm

Worked real well for the Blacks when O'bomber got anointed as corporate tool-in-chief, didn't it? (don't ask the idiot repub voters, they think the country is a black-dominated, socialist pit of hell).

(2)(0)

Veginatorsays:

June 6, 2015 at 10:12 pm

Yeah, didn't work out too well for black people, did it? :(

(8)(1)

Disqus_Y6WHZaAmUfsays:

June 5, 2015 at 9:33 am

I have no clue as to what you are talking about since I do not subscribe to that list and do not have a clue as to their purpose. I understand they have been usurped by special interests of some sort though as I have have read in passing but really don't know what they are about. I think for myself. I research lots of ways. I make my own decisions based upon my values.

(1)(0)

SMOKIN_FOOLsays:

June 10, 2015 at 10:55 pm

Emily's List seeks to elect women. More recently, the group has placed its focus on fundraising for Hillary Clinton. I am not a fan of Secretary Clinton; and concerned that the opposition will use her emails and the CGI's foreign donors to discredit her, costing progressives and women their chances for high elective offices.

(1)(0)

Disqus_Y6WHZaAmUfsays:

June 11, 2015 at 12:36 am

You are saying two different things I think. Or are you saying you support her for fear of women loosing even more ground? I cannot vote for someone on one issue be it gender, race, religion or whatever. I will not fall for that thereby weakening the country even more. I have to vote for someone based upon actual record and integrity.

(3)(0)

Disqus_3ZAqaP8w5Jsays:

June 13, 2015 at 4:23 am

Nobody is voting on JUST gender.
Hillary Clinton is as progressive, if not more, on most issues than any electable Democratic candidate, and any we've had inthe past, including Obama!
More than that, she is the strongest, most committed supporter of gender equality, and especially reproductive rights, which are being eroded.
That IS a MAJOR issue...
It should be to everyone, men as well as women...
But I guess some men [and perhaps women] still don't get how fundamental that is!!!!!!
The record of the "progressive" left on gender has been...well, appalling...both in the US and in every socialist country.
Partially because gender inequality is trivialized and marginalized.......and it's too close to home for a lot of progressives. Including perhaps Bernie Sanders....
I want a President who really "gets" gender inequality..deep down!
Just like Obama really "gets" race...

(1)(3)

Thenation-7576dcd8ba4c4fbdb87a2ecb80956a98says:

June 24, 2015 at 5:53 am

...glad you got your short list of "wants"...others have lists much longer and more far-sighted than a trip to campus "Rainbow Diversity Daze"

(1)(0)

Fool_me_twice_shame_on_MEsays:

June 24, 2015 at 12:33 am

You are truly delusional if you believe much of what you wrote is actually the truth. She CAMPAIGNS on many of those issues, but to claim she is strongest on those issues is way outside of reality. Most of her "populist" rhetoric only came about after Elizabeth Warren coached her and Bernie Sanders saw great responses with his stump speeches. Her voting history is not nearly as strong as her rhetoric on many of your claims. Here are a few simple questions to test your logic and reasoning ability; Why is it that in spite of all of Hillary's anti-Wall Street and income equality campaign rhetoric, all of her Wall Street campaign contributors still want her to be president over everybody else? Do you think their reasons are the same as yours? Do they maybe know something you don't? The issues you bring up ARE important, but to think you need to be female to champion those issues only demonstrates how little you really believe what you're writing. I'm all for a female president, but one tied so closely to Wall Street is just Obama in a skirt. Right now Bernie Sanders has a 30 year track record of being SOLIDLY in the corner of gender equality and fairness for EVERYBODY, and he would be hands down better for you and your (our) causes. Corporate greed will prevent Hillary from acting on much of what she now says to get your vote because they already own her (just like they did with Obama).

(5)(0)

Thenation-7576dcd8ba4c4fbdb87a2ecb80956a98says:

June 24, 2015 at 5:56 am

Wait til the face each other in a debate...she will run-off screaming...

I don't think she'll run, but she will be fuming, and knowing her history, she'll try to "pull a few strings" with her Wall Street partners. I also believe Senator Sanders will be smart enough to deal with any of her dirty tricks (and even if he isn't, we'll have his back, so it won't matter).

(0)(0)

Disqus_34ZYwxlI80says:

June 14, 2015 at 1:33 pm

and she's an unrepentant war monger who voted to destroy Irak.

(2)(0)

Disqus_3ZAqaP8w5Jsays:

June 15, 2015 at 11:38 am

And Obama? He didn't have to actually vote...but look what he has done since then

(0)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:41 am

While I agree with some of what you said, there are no socialists that speak for me.

(0)(0)

Akosmsays:

June 6, 2015 at 12:36 pm

Who speak for you?

(0)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 6, 2015 at 5:58 pm

I speak for me, thanks. I'm not looking to politicians to save me or pretend to be my "champion".

(0)(0)

Disqus_PK9xq9sw4psays:

June 5, 2015 at 6:43 am

Does Mrs. Clinton speak for you more than Sanders does?

(1)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 10:12 am

Not even a little.

(1)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:44 am

Mr. Sanders is a democratic socialist. That is quite different from what socialism has come to mean. Check him out to see if you still think of what he's talking about is the same as the socialism that you are thinking about. If you are a true democrat, I think you will find yourself agreeing with him more that you might expect.

(0)(0)

Dazzeetrader1980says:

June 5, 2015 at 8:11 am

Not in function. Same cult of miscreants.

(0)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:59 am

I'm sure you'd be correct if I was a "true democrat" but I'm a lifelong independent who's not a fan of socialism even when it comes with a nice, cheery smiley-face.

(1)(1)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 6, 2015 at 11:19 am

I was using a small letter democrat to make it mean someone who believes in the principles of democracy. I did not necessarily mean the Democratic Party.

(0)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 6, 2015 at 6:05 pm

...where do you see the word "democrat" here?

"Oh! Gosh. I thought I was just getting into the repub style here. Not doing it right? Not snarky enough? Please, tell me how I can be as good as you are at it."

(0)(0)

Michael5186says:

June 5, 2015 at 3:56 am

Especially LeBron James and Oprah Winfrey. They need to give their earnings back to the less fortunate.

Right?

(6)(2)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 5, 2015 at 4:07 am

I said "nobody NEEDS more money than they can spend in 40+ life times". You want to reply to that? Or do you still prefer to change the topic of conversation.

(2)(0)

Disqus_71G0GUf2aTsays:

June 5, 2015 at 8:11 am

Who are you to determine what someone else needs? Perhaps I need to earn $5,000,000 per year to fund all of my charitable endeavors. Maybe I just want a bigger jet. What business is it of yours? What gives you the right to limit my income or to determine what I do with it? Do you really need to have abortions on demand? Do gay people really need to be married? Do women really need to be paid the same as men? Does Kankles Clinton really need to be paid $500,000 per horrible speech?

(5)(1)

Disqus_UL9q0nEo1usays:

June 19, 2015 at 12:43 am

Uh, perhaps trolls such as yourself would be happier on some right-wing site where ditto heads are enjoying the propaganda echo chamber. Most reasonable people and certainly readers of The Nation understand the extreme income inequality you profess to have no issues with is corrosive to our society in many ways.

If you don't understand this, Google billionaire Nick Hanauer's TED talk "The Pitchforks are Coming". It's not about "envy".

(0)(0)

Alexanderdunnsays:

June 14, 2015 at 6:30 am

And do really need to attack those issues? What business is it of yours if I want an abortion on a jet?

(0)(0)

SMOKIN_FOOLsays:

June 10, 2015 at 11:04 pm

Using a derogatory term like "kankles" says more about you,TNCGB. Last time I checked, The Nation limited comments to adults.

(0)(0)

Disqus_0zGDG2c2jFsays:

June 11, 2015 at 12:07 pm

How about ugly hag? How about washed up and corrupt? Many adjectives aptly describe Hillary.

(0)(0)

Signalfire1says:

June 9, 2015 at 5:56 am

And WHY exactly would ANYone pay her that much money to hear that horrid voice drone on and on with predictable crap? The only possible reason anyone would give Killary money is to get favors.

(1)(0)

Atoms_ksays:

June 8, 2015 at 2:57 pm

There aren't many rich people, or even middle class fwiw, whose wealth doesn't harm, or isn't based in harming many other people. You cannot earn $500000 without doing some serious damage to someone somewhere.

(2)(0)

Disqus_0zGDG2c2jFsays:

June 10, 2015 at 10:08 am

There is no basis for your statement other than envy.

(0)(0)

Akosmsays:

June 6, 2015 at 11:48 am

We cannot determine what someone needs and in capitalism there always will be people who earn 40+ times they can spend in a lifetime. However what I don't agree with is to use their money to influence all policy decisions (through an army of lobbyists) in their favor, to use their money to spread misinformation through the media, and buy elections (citizen's united)

(2)(0)

Disqus_zgojiG4Jnzsays:

June 6, 2015 at 11:51 pm

Clearly the answer is an end to the current capitalist way

(3)(0)

Disqus_0zGDG2c2jFsays:

June 11, 2015 at 12:15 pm

Clearly you are a fool. Capitalistic countries have the highest standard of living in the world.

(0)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 7, 2015 at 12:47 am

Yea, communism worked so well.

Quit molesting little kids, Hillary-bot.

(1)(1)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 5, 2015 at 12:58 pm

You people who jump on me for saying someone doesn't need more money than a person could spend in 40+ lifetimes, get over it. I didn't say that person shouldn't have all they could spend in one life time. I'm just saying that they should pay taxes on all of it and pay them no matter where the bucks were stashed. They take it out of the country? So what. They should still owe. They use the roads, use the water, breathe the air. Pay up. What makes them special? Pay the people that work for them a living wage, with benefits. If there are some who already do it, good on them. But it should be required. Walmart wages are a disgrace. People who pay taxes are paying part of the Walmart employees wages, in effect. What does that mean to you? Listen to Bernie Sanders. I'm not a Clinton supporter by any means. Senator Sanders is my candidate of choice. Go to his site and read what he has to say. Don't let other people say what he is. Listen to what he says. As far as I'm concerned, he's got it right.

(9)(0)

Batteredupsays:

June 10, 2015 at 11:57 pm

The rich could be forced to do simple things, like pay social security taxes on wages above $125K that would right a lot of problems.

(0)(0)

Disqus_0zGDG2c2jFsays:

June 11, 2015 at 12:05 pm

A better solution is to cut SS benefits. Maybe people would learn to look out for themselves.

(0)(0)

Batteredupsays:

June 11, 2015 at 6:30 pm

Better for whom? Tossing old people into deeper poverty is really cruel. Nice way to pay back your fellow Americans for a lifetime of contributions to our society. And you choose to support the millionaire/billionaire class of business owners who pay crappy wages now and less every time the idiots in DC sign another "free-trade" bill that ships good-paying jobs away. If there aren't enough good-paying jobs around, how are workers supposed to "look out for themselves?" Why don' you "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" as the rest of the greedy-hateful lot of people are programmed to think, get yourself educated on the dynamics of the economic structure of this country and how it affects the working class and maybe you'll come to a more reasoned solution that doesn't involve making the less fortunate suffer even more?

(0)(0)

SMOKIN_FOOLsays:

June 10, 2015 at 11:14 pm

So far, only one person has criticized you comment and not until you returned to expand your thoughts. Apparently, there are enough people who are willing to pay the price of attending certain speakers. Unfortunately, these honoraria are influence peddling, which is more troubling than anything.

(0)(0)

Dreamjoehillsays:

June 7, 2015 at 9:26 am

The people jumping on you are the nasty little capitalist swine posing as progressive. Lot's of that at the Nation.
Extreme wealth disparity is the fundamental issue facing the US and all these bourgeoisie idiots can say is, "What business is it of yours how much someone else makes."

(10)(0)

Disqus_0zGDG2c2jFsays:

June 11, 2015 at 11:58 am

Do you think if a hedge fund manager makes less money, you will make more? Or maybe you can't make more because you are not working.

(0)(1)

Dreamjoehillsays:

June 11, 2015 at 10:18 pm

Did you know the hedge funds managers capital gains ate taxed at a lower rate than normal wages?

(1)(0)

Cosmiccrunch86says:

June 8, 2015 at 8:00 am

And people in poverty can do drugs if they want and not have to worry about being tested. You people act like the problem is just the people with money. Open your eyes, the problem is everywhere.

(0)(0)

Dreamjoehillsays:

June 8, 2015 at 8:15 am

.The people with money and power have a lot of control over the social relations of society. The powerful determine what drugs are widely available to the impoverished. The history of CIA drug running and bank laundering of drug profits is a long and nasty one.
BTW, using the term "you people" makes you appear to be an ignorant bigot.
The poor don't create wealth disparity. It is a part of the way US capitalism is organized.

(4)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 7, 2015 at 9:32 pm

Capitalists would never pose as progressives and the only "swine" are the traitors who seek to turn us into another failed socialist "utopia".

(0)(1)

Batteredupsays:

June 11, 2015 at 12:07 am

You are over-reacting. Stop listening to the fear mongers in the capitalistic-driven, corporate owned media that serves the selfish and greedy. All people want is a little compassion in their gov't, like a safety net that protects the working class from going bankrupt over illness, losing their homes and everything they own because health care is too high to afford or help for people wanting affordable education to escape poverty and crappy jobs, or an end to war for profits that cost us trillions that could be used for better things like creating good-paying jobs at home with infrastructure repairs. Or taxing income above $125K to strengthen the social security program. Greedy capitalists spend tons trying to discredit these ideas through think-tank conspirators designing arguments against these compassionate ideals, calling it a "nanny-state" or welfare, when the corporate world gets all kinds of corporate welfare under nicer names like subsidies, tax havens/shelters, tax cuts and bailouts for criminally crooked banks. When hungry
Americans can't find work and need food stamps, the right wing criticizes them as "takers." But when the banks rob us blind, steal our retirement funds, crash our real estate investments and then shake us down for a $700 billion bailout, that the robbed people are forced to pay for, you pull your pants down, bend over and smile for the exalted "job creators." Guess what? That's a lie too! They are NOT job creators, DEMAND is the only job creator.

(0)(0)

Dreamjoehillsays:

June 7, 2015 at 9:50 pm

Capitalists pose as progressive all the time. The Rockefellers fund a lot of faux progressive politics.
As to your anti-socialist bigotry, stick it in your (r) ear.

(7)(0)

Disqus_0zGDG2c2jFsays:

June 11, 2015 at 12:00 pm

If being against socialist traitors is bigotry, count me in!

(0)(0)

Gabesgrandma1939says:

June 27, 2015 at 9:01 am

You seem to have no problem siding with corporate fascism.

(0)(0)

Dreamjoehillsays:

June 11, 2015 at 10:17 pm

Yeah, clearly you are a shameless bigot. Do the world a favor and kill yourself.

(0)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 8, 2015 at 12:23 am

Haha-- being anti-socialist is "bigotry" now? Funny, it used to be on-par with being anti-Nazi-- EVERYBODY knew it was the ideology of failure. There wasn't a democrat in congress that would be seen dead marching with a socialist group.

Sorry history makes you so angry.

(0)(0)

Batteredupsays:

June 11, 2015 at 12:11 am

People supporting the likes of Bernie Sanders aren't calling for pure socialism, only enough of a hybrid with capitalism to make it fair for everyone, so even the poor have a chance. Some of the best and most successful programs in the history of the nation are built on socialist principles. How the hell do you think we build roads, schools, bridges, water systems, etc.? Through a cooperative effort. The GD military is the highest form of socialism, but the right wing socialist-haters treasure this agency as the shining example of Amerikkka.

(0)(0)

Disqus_0zGDG2c2jFsays:

June 11, 2015 at 12:03 pm

If the poor would stop committing crimes and get a job, they would have a chance.

(0)(0)

Dreamjoehillsays:

June 8, 2015 at 12:43 am

The bigotry is the "traitor" part. The Dems are just the other face of the Janus like US ruling class.

(3)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 8, 2015 at 1:17 am

It used to be common knowledge that's socialists were traitors-- if you could find any anywhere.

(0)(0)

Batteredupsays:

June 11, 2015 at 12:18 am

Maybe among the uninformed it was common (communist) knowledge, with the help of propaganda. And wasn't it common knowledge that Saddam had WMDs and the Iraqi people would welcome us with open arms instead of loaded arms aimed at us? And the supply-side, trickle-down theory of economics would be a boon for all America? And Hillary is a liberal and going into Vietnam will stop the flow of communism and block the domino theory fears and free trade will boost our economy and cutting gov't assistance to the poor will force them to pull themselves up by the bootstraps even if there's no jobs to help them buy a pair of boots with straps and rush limbo speaks the truth and msnbc is liberal and obomber will take our guns on and on ... ad infinitum.

(0)(0)

Dreamjoehillsays:

June 8, 2015 at 1:21 am

"It used to be common knowledge that's socialists were traitors "

No that was a result of McCarthyism, which itself violated the 1st & 5th amendment. You claim to support the Constitution, but that's true only when it suits you.

The actual traitors are the corporate fat cats and their political whores in both parties who shipped jobs overseas and waste USAn blood and money on their wars for markets and resources.

(6)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 8, 2015 at 1:26 am

Is that what your professors told you? Remember the 80's and early 90's well, do you?

(0)(0)

Dreamjoehillsays:

June 8, 2015 at 1:41 am

Well you've sunk down to the level of incoherency. You are both disgusting and pathetic.
A real waste of oxygen.

(5)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 8, 2015 at 1:43 am

...says the guy lisping "EAT SHIT!!! F$&@ OFF!!"

You're an angry little hypocrite/commie, aren't you?

(0)(0)

Dreamjoehillsays:

June 8, 2015 at 1:53 am

Nothing incoherent about my contempt for you and your type.
Anyone with intelligence and humanity would feel the same way about you, you greedy little bigot.

(6)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 8, 2015 at 1:59 am

Yea, yea, so much tough talk from behind your little keyboard. In real life, you beta-male Nazi's are cowards.

(0)(0)

Batteredupsays:

June 11, 2015 at 12:25 am

Get a clue, inferiorator. Fascism is far-right wing politics, as in the extreme republican side of the continuum. Hitler, Mussolini, Cheney, etc. This represents totalitarian state power, often run by big money who own and control the means of production within a state. Socialism is on the far left side of the line graph, heavily favoring the working class, where workers often have a controlling share of the means of production. They are polar opposites, not one and the same as you believe. Now go educate yourself and maybe someday you can return and have an informed, enlightened discussion with someone other than the voices you hear reverberating in your echo chamber cranium.

(1)(0)

Dave_925says:

June 8, 2015 at 8:04 am

There is no comma in the plural of "Nazi" and like most wingers, you believe the propaganda that the Nazis were socialists. Hey having the word "Socialist" in your party's name does not make one a Socialist, The reason the Nazis put it in there was because Socialism was a popular political stance in the early 20th c. There was a sizable Socialist Party in Germany during the Reign of the Kaiser for instance. The Nazis themselves were supported by the Capitalist Industrialists, both in Germany but especially from America and proving themselves to be the REAL traitors who actually attempted a coup in 1934 so they might install their very own "Fuhrer" whom they presumed they could manipulate just as they thought they could Hitler. Well, you know how that worked out don't you?

This is suppressed in our History and was even so at the time it happened because it was thought the nation would revolt (Pitchforks and Torches time is what they wished to avoid) against the wealthy if it were to become common knowledge the rich had attempted to overthrow our legally elected Government. This is the nature of our wealthiest ruling class, it is they who are traitors. It is they who blithely send our jobs overseas so that they might maximize their profits. It is they who steal our labor so that they might maximize their profits. It is they who corrupt our government so they might, yes, you got it, maximize their profits. Every traitorous thing they do they do from the sociopathic greed that infests their belief system. Everything they are emanates directly from their unmitigated desire to rule over us all,

I'm not saying there aren't some decent wealthy individuals but it really only takes a few to destroy a Nation and when it becomes an actual belief system, a system where it is considered the right thing to do to accumulate as much wealth as you possibly can at the expense of your fellow countrymen and women, it is time you are relieved of this unnatural power that you abuse beyond description. To be a decent person of wealth, it is so very important to do so much more than your "share" because the share you do have is so much greater than anyone elses'. It is so very important that you pay an exceptional level of taxes because you have an exceptionl level of wealth. It is important you give a much greater piece of your talents because ostensibly your talent is so much greater than others'. Only in this way can exceptional wealth be justified because from whom much is given, much is required.

(5)(0)

Batteredupsays:

June 11, 2015 at 12:26 am

Just like the patriot ax has nothing to do with patriotism or liberty.

(0)(0)

Dreamjoehillsays:

June 8, 2015 at 2:00 am

Ah the beta male bullshit.
You continually provide proof of your own piggishness.

(2)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 8, 2015 at 4:45 am

Take your own advice and "eat shit", hypocrite.

(0)(0)

Dreamjoehillsays:

June 8, 2015 at 5:22 am

aww is da wittle wun angwy.
ROFL. What an ass

(0)(0)

Disqus_0zGDG2c2jFsays:

June 11, 2015 at 12:01 pm

Do you have trouble with spelling?

(0)(0)

Jack_hagansays:

June 8, 2015 at 8:17 am

What don't you like about Marxism?

(0)(0)

Dreamjoehillsays:

June 8, 2015 at 10:32 am

The dictatorship of the proletariat.

However, historically speaking, anti-communism has been more damaging then communism. Indonesia, Central America, Vietnam, Cambodia (Pol Pot was brought on by Uncle Sammy's bombing and the US sponsored coup against the neutralist Prince Sihanouk; Pol Pot was a product of barbaric anti-communism.) Also, those nations where anti-communism committed mass murder have ben far slower to develop economically than the communist nations.

I've never ben a supporter of communism. I led amnesty International campaigns to release Russian dissidents, but also agisnt the torture and death squads in central America.

I take my political stands based in working class issues and perspective.

But you're obviously a right wing, anti-communist. That movement has the blood of millions on its hands.
So yeah, what didn't you like about Pinochet? Suharto?

(4)(0)

Jack_hagansays:

June 8, 2015 at 10:47 am

I like freedom. The different labels that are given to kings just serve as as a ruse for those whose intelligence is hitting it's boundaries with polysyllabic verbal masturbation. In other words, if your political ideas cannot be summed up in a manner that Churchill would of approved of you are most likely a totalitarian trying to hide your evil plans. Almost all on the left are still waging war over the insults and slights they received in jr. and senior high school. Monkeys jealous of other monkeys bananas. Always we are right to not trust the left. It's the exclusive source of totalitarian movements. So in other words you are the enemy of freedom. You want revenge.

(0)(0)

Dreamjoehillsays:

June 8, 2015 at 11:00 am

You use the term "polysyllabic verbal masturbation."

You know what that amounts to?

Polysyllabic verbal masturbation.

The psychobabale is also unbecoming of any self respecting Conservative, but that's not what you are, You're a fat ass bully boy.

What a maroon. Go look up the history of Suharto in Indonesia where a million were killed by the cult of anti-communism.
And of course there's Hitler, a rightist totalitarian. Of course you're just the type of dumbass that claims Hitler was a lefty. It's idiocy on tap with you right wing scumbags.

(3)(0)

Jack_hagansays:

June 8, 2015 at 11:12 am

Lol! You got hoisted on your own petard you pretentious twit. You are a totalitarian. You are my enemy. I called you out and you showed yourself. You creatures always do.

(0)(1)

Dreamjoehillsays:

June 8, 2015 at 11:32 am

BTW, you are making a complete ass of yourself. Punching way above your weight calss intellectually. I read your comment history. You've got nothing but snark & bile.
No ideas, no facts, just insulting bullshit and hostility.
Nothing else.
You must be very empty inside and no one likes you,

Yeah "creatures". Nice terminology you fascist bully boy wannabee.
Go follow your buddy Breitbart to the other side. the hell where all right wing scumbags end up, devouring one another.
.

(1)(0)

Jack_hagansays:

June 8, 2015 at 8:46 pm

Well, here you are flouncing around comments sections and you got called on your shallow idea of intellectualism. Boo hoo. You needed a slap. That's all you rate.

(0)(1)

Dreamjoehillsays:

June 9, 2015 at 1:19 am

HA ha, if anyone was called out on shallowness of intellect it was you.
Your comments are fact free snark and bullying. You're a vile right wing pig.
It's clear you rate far worse than a slap, you nasty POS.

(1)(0)

Sophiectsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:08 am

So Kelly, you're jealous that she earned her money?

(0)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 5, 2015 at 5:48 am

Actually no. And you have no idea about my own circumstances. I have all I need—and I don't need that much. I have a small income and am retired. I don't have a TV. I do have a computer, obviously. I live in a small rented house. I go to a writers' group. I'm making miniature copies of my concert performance gowns for a 22" doll that I made for myself when I was working. That way I can keep the memories but they won't take up much room. So I'm fine, thank you. What bothers me is all the people who aren't fine and no matter if they work hard but haven't got the money to get an education or special training and they are paid Walmart wages so that even if they work hard they still have to go on welfare, that doesn't mean that Oprah hasn't earned her money. It just means that if I have to pay a certain percentage of my earnings to the government for the benefit of the rest of the country, so should everyone else. Why is it not that those in the top brackets should get breaks (for instance, not pay tax on money they can stash offshore)? If the owners of Walmart can be one of the very wealthiest families in this country why do we have to suplement their workers' salaries with welfare? Why are they not obligated to pay those workers a truly living wage? Ms. SophieCT, I think you surely must see the logic of that and not think that just because I use the level of need as a measure of wealth, that I begrudge anyone the fruits of their labors. However, I do think that the government should not have to make up the difference between salary and a living wage, when Walmart supports the owners in amazing luxury but requires taxes on the rest of us to help make up the difference for its employees between their salaries and a living wage.

(1)(0)

Sophiectsays:

June 6, 2015 at 11:00 pm

You are finally right about something--I have no idea of your circumstances. But you, YOU know everything. You know exactly what everybody is thinking and what motivates them. You know so much of everything that you are uniquely qualified to judge everybody. Must be fabulous to be you.

(2)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 8, 2015 at 3:19 am

SophieCT—You know, I started to reply in the same vein as your post. I had answered earlier but I was just going through the comments again and saw this. I really apologize if what I am conjecturing sounds anything like I think that conjecture is the same as actual knowledge. That's the trouble with lists like this. There is no eye contact, no tone of voice, no chance to see expressions or to ask questions at the moment a statement is made. Makes it hard to judge what someone says and hard to speak in a way that really conveys what one is thinking much less feeling. Please accept my apologies for projecting a know-it-all attitude. I hate that in others so I am very ashamed if I have sinned in the same vein. At the moment, I am ashamed of myself and that makes it not so fabulous at all to be me. Please forgive me.

(0)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 7, 2015 at 8:09 am

There is definitely something I don't know, SophieCT, and that is how you get the idea that I know everything. I really don't. Know everything, I mean. But what I do know is that there is a lot of unfairness in our tax system, our healthcare system, our human rights system, and just about every public system out there. But you're right about one thing. I do enjoy being me. ;D

(0)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 7, 2015 at 2:03 am

Well thank you for being so complimentary. Heh!

(0)(1)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 7, 2015 at 12:31 am

The sanctimony and self-righteousness never ends with progressives. She's repeating Obama's "fair share" narrative and regurgitating everything she reads on Mother Jones as if it was based in reality, and patting herself on the back for being one of the "smart people".

(1)(2)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 7, 2015 at 8:10 am

Generalize much? ;D

(0)(0)

Frankgriffinsays:

June 5, 2015 at 9:26 am

You have a lot of growing up to do Kelly. Let me help you out with one simple lesson. Minimum wage is enough for a single person to make it. The job is also only worth minimum wage. If you all of a sudden buy a house or pop out 4 kids the value of the job has not changed. The employer is not obligated to pay you more than the job is worth just because you are not responsible.

(2)(3)

Disqus_hsu1ZXUDfZsays:

June 6, 2015 at 10:00 pm

Let me help you out with the important parts of Kelly's post that you seem to have allowed to slap off the front of your forehead and onto the floor before you responded with that generic, unrelated rant.

"It just means that if I have to pay a certain percentage of my earnings to the government for the benefit of the rest of the country, so should everyone else. Why is it not that those in the top brackets should get breaks (for instance, not pay tax on money they can stash offshore)? If the owners of Walmart can be one of the very wealthiest families in this country why do we have to suplement their workers' salaries with welfare? Why are they not obligated to pay those workers a truly living wage?"

You simply claim that the "Minimum wage is enough for a single person to make it." But you have absolutely no authority to say that and it flies in the face of every assessment of our economy.

(2)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 7, 2015 at 10:42 am

Thank you for helping me! I really appreciate it. Very succinct. I do tend to ramble on! ;D

(0)(0)

Frankgriffinsays:

June 7, 2015 at 6:08 am

Looks like you have a lot of growing up to do too Malk. If you are not a responsible person you need to suffer the consequences or you will continue to make even more mistakes. It is not the employers responsibility to make you responsible. If you need more money and have no skills then simply work more hours. Don't complain about what people or company's do with their own money. Once they pay their taxes they should be able to move it where ever they please. You sound like a communist wanting to keep tabs on what people do with their own stuff.

(1)(0)

Disqus_hsu1ZXUDfZsays:

June 7, 2015 at 8:18 pm

Frank, you can't distinguish between plural and possessive. Don't you think that maybe you should also consider the fact that these questions, which are quite a bit more complicated than how to spell the plural form of words like 'company', require a little more thought than you're giving them?

This isn't about making hard-working individuals MORE responsible. Nobody is trying to give irresponsible people a break here. It's about irresponsible companies which at the moment get a huge break at your expense. Your tax money goes to these fully employed people who still don't earn enough in wages and as a result are supplemented with aid. Instead of paying them a living wage, companies short their employees and boost their own profits while forcing us tax-payers to pick up the rest through the aid programs we fund. How does it feel to compensate the shortage in wages for some of the most profitable businesses on the planet, like WalMart? How do you like paying for their workers' wages through your taxes while they boost their own profits? Why don't you think that these companies should be more responsible while expecting individuals to figure it out themselves?

(2)(0)

Frankgriffinsays:

June 9, 2015 at 5:33 pm

Malkman, you can't distinguish between a term paper and a casual comment site. Don't you think maybe you should also consider the fact that these questions, which are quite a bit more complicated than knowing what type of environment you are in requires a little more thought than you're giving them you grammar NAZI?

Look you simply refuse to allow people to grow up. You ignore economics and try to blame the company instead of the individual who is screwing up. Wanting a job to pay more than it is worth is a thing of the past. We live in reality and I suggest you join it.

Now try to at least act like an adult and leave you lame grammar comments behind. Nitpicking is the surest sign that you have already lost the debate.

(0)(0)

Disqus_hsu1ZXUDfZsays:

June 13, 2015 at 9:19 pm

It's English, Frank. And it's economics. Blaming a wage-earner somehow makes sense to you regardless of the obscene profits their employers make and regardless of the taxes we pay to subsidize those meager wages. It is illogical. You talk about responsibility but have no interest in holding employers responsible.

(0)(0)

Frankgriffinsays:

June 20, 2015 at 4:16 am

There is a time and a place and you are out of sync with both. Save your feeble English lessons for the class room. Here in the arena of ideas you just got trashed. Your grammar corrections reek of debate failure. When you have a burger flipper with multiple kids the lack of responsibility lies firmly with that individual. The current minimum wage is enough for a single person to get by on. If you want an apartment to yourself don't whine go work more hours or learn a more valuable skill. Sitting around complaining all day like blacks will leave you poor and in the gutter. It is best to get over yourself and work or work harder. The road you and your ilk are going down only leads to more misery.

(0)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 7, 2015 at 8:38 am

Growing up seems to be a big concern for you. Why is that? As for being concerned about what companies do with their money, it's the part about "once they pay their taxes" that concerns us. It's the part about paying their taxes. They don't pay any sometimes. They have rigged the system by paying congresspeople to set the tax bar very very very low and so they don't really HAVE to pay any taxes. Did you know that? If not, why not? I'll wait for your answer.

(0)(0)

Frankgriffinsays:

June 9, 2015 at 5:43 pm

Silly little Kelly. You need to grow up because your ignorance hurts everyone as a whole. Companies do not pay taxes we do. You are simply not up to the task of debating on these topics but you are not alone. There is an army of economic illiterates like yourself demanding this and that. Up your game by learning something instead of simply feeling and demanding.

(0)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 7, 2015 at 2:05 am

Thank you again, malkman! I appreciated your post and, even more, your understanding of the situation we have here.

(0)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 5, 2015 at 1:42 pm

Franky sweety, I'm 77. I have a BA and three years of grad school plus years of private training. I've done the exact same job as a man and made a fifth of the money. When I complained, I was told he needed to put a roof on his house. They didn't seem impressed that I had to pay rent on my apartment. After a performance or two every year for 20 years with one company among nine, they gave me a silverplated tray engraved with thanks and my name. I married my husband after I retired from my career before the public and as a teacher. Did I mention I saw both my parents through their final illnesses as caretaker, working all the while? Now talk to me about how much growing up I have to do. PS: I have no children.

(3)(0)

Frankgriffinsays:

June 7, 2015 at 6:13 am

Being 77 does not mean that you have grown up mentally. You are proof of this. This is also not the 1800s. If you are not being paid the same as men for the same work you would have a lawsuit. You are supposed to take care of family so do you want a cookie for that? Not quit trying to harm people with your lazy thoughts.

(1)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 7, 2015 at 8:30 am

You are right about something: This is NOT the 1800s. Neither was the time I was speaking of in my post. It was the early 1970s. Besides, I was doing work as an opera singer. If I wanted to work, I took what I got and kept going. I climbed out of that situation and ended up being voted by the singers in the region as their rep to the union—for 4 terms. So please stop making assumptions. I didn't ask for a cookie. I just told you that I had other responsibilities besides my work. Women do that on a regular basis because men usually don't. I will tell you that I had a conductor tell me that if I wanted a career I should expect to work "30 hours a day, 10 days a week." He was only partly joking. He was telling me it was an all-consuming endeavor and he was right. But I wanted to and I did. It was the choice I made. Now tell me, what harm to people? I've had people I'd never met tell me how much the music I was involved in meant to them and how it had enriched their lives—for example once when I just called the business office of a hospital to verify an entry on a bill and had never met the woman. So please answer this: How are my thoughts "lazy" and how are they harming people?

(0)(0)

Frankgriffinsays:

June 9, 2015 at 5:45 pm

If you don't want a cookie then quit talking about unneeded stuff. The time you are spent demanding and commenting could have been spent doing something constructive instead of destructive. Being wrong is fine but speaking up loudly while being in said state is just wrong. Now grow up or at least fake it till you make it.

(0)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 10:07 am

Exactly correct. Some jobs are supposed to be for high-school kids, retirees, etc...

(0)(1)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 7, 2015 at 8:43 am

As Ms. Hutchinson mentions above, how DO MacDonalds and Walmart stay open when the kids are in school? Interesting question which I'm sure our resident financial genius Mr. Theinfuriator is simply chomping at the bit to tell us.

(0)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 8, 2015 at 1:54 am

There's no point, clearly, you've drunk the koolaid.

(0)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 9, 2015 at 10:50 am

So you don't know either. It is a puzzle, I grant you.

(0)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 6, 2015 at 1:24 pm

I would like to see a highschool kid sing Wagner and as a retiree, I don't anymore either. Be serious. Please use the mind you obviously have for something besides...oh forget it. A stone is not capable of thought and only glacial change. Won't be wasting my time with you.

(1)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 6, 2015 at 5:55 pm

My apologies-- I forgot how emotional leftists get when confronted with uncomfortable facts.

(0)(1)

Disqus_71G0GUf2aTsays:

June 5, 2015 at 8:38 am

You need to understand that fairness is a myth. It does not exist and cannot be forced into existence. People are born with certain genetic traits (I.e. Short, tall, fat, thin, athletic, awkward, attractive, unattractive, smart, brilliant, average, below average, etc). Some have loving parents, some have horrible, abusive parents. Some have one parent, some have none. Some are encouraged, some are discouraged, some are genetically predisposed to drug use, some are extroverts, some are introverts and some think they should be a different gender altogether. All of this and much more contributes to whether people have what they "need". You can't control any of this. Inequality is an undeniable fact of life. Deal with it.

(1)(2)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 7, 2015 at 10:50 am

I gave you an "up" arrow because you are absolutely correct. The place where you miss the mark is in thinking I meant the people were equal in what they can give. What I meant is, every person is equally important as a human being. Every one needs to be enabled to live at a basic level. That's the equal part. Some people need no help at all. Some people need help just to function as a human being. Some are totally helpless and need total care. So people and needs are unequal. Each person's worth as a human being is equal to every other's. Even if some, for the good of society, need to be isolated because they want to destroy others or take from them what they need to survive.

(0)(0)

Pattymacdonellsays:

June 7, 2015 at 2:01 am

Quite the rabbit hole you want to fall into here. Can you think of any repercussions of living without justice that might make life unbearable? Do you understand what you are saying?

(3)(0)

Frankgriffinsays:

June 7, 2015 at 6:22 am

Liberals are their own rabbit hole. You work you get money you don't work you don't get money. It's very simple stuff.

(1)(0)

Pattymacdonellsays:

June 7, 2015 at 10:16 pm

But the idea behind getting money for work is a system of fairness. And unlike tncbg, your argument is that the system is inherently fair so we shouldn't fight for guaranteed wages because we are already getting them, right? TNCBG says we shouldn't fight for fairness because things are not fair. You say we shouldn't fight for fairness because they are. Let me know if I understand you.

(1)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 7, 2015 at 2:11 am

Yes! You are so right, Ms. MacDonell! I really think that the people who are arguing that fairness doesn't exist are those who don't want it to exist—except for themselves. Also, I really don't think they understand what they are saying. I think much of their insensitivity comes from lack of thinking. They have certain ideas and do not want to be confused by facts or the possible real consequences of the ideas they hold as "truth".

(0)(0)

Frankgriffinsays:

June 7, 2015 at 6:25 am

You have those exact traits Kelly. Lack of critical thought is your middle name. Many in the world tried communism and hundreds of millions died on that alter. Capitalism is not perfect but it is the best this world has to offer humanity. Anything else is just the result of people like Kelly not knowing or understanding history and economics. Now grow up, even if it appears to be too late for you.

(1)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 9, 2015 at 10:38 am

Actually, my middle name is "Lee".

(0)(0)

Frankgriffinsays:

June 9, 2015 at 5:18 pm

Like I said it appears yo be too late for you, whatever you want to call yourself.

(0)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 7, 2015 at 6:40 am

I commend you for giving it the old college try but there are too many koolaid drinkers here. They love to tell non-liberals how stupid and evil they are. One of them likes to say I'm a virgin. You know-- typical tantrum-like behavior from the "smart, enlightened, evolved" folk.

(1)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 7, 2015 at 8:49 am

;D You have not ever seen a tantrum till you've seen mine. Wait for it. It just might break out one of these days. Prepare your hidey hole right now. Otherwise you are well and truly for it. Bwaaaahaaahaaa!!!!!!!!

(0)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 12:42 pm

Amen.

(0)(1)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 7, 2015 at 8:55 am

@frankgriffen and Theinfuriator: Well then. As soon as I see some conservative adults, I'll give it a try. Right now, however, all I see are squawlly brats mad because people want them to share and play nice. I'll google to get a few pointers on how to treat you until you grow up.

(0)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 7, 2015 at 9:54 pm

Always with the sanctimony from up on the high horse. How much time and money do YOU donate to the poor? Or do you just vote "D" and pat yourself on the back for being noble?

(0)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 9, 2015 at 10:41 am

A lot. Next question.

(0)(0)

Michael5186says:

June 5, 2015 at 4:09 am

I am on topic. Per your observation, LeBron James and Oprah Winfrey don't need their earnings. They should give back 95% of it to the less fortunate. In fact, i think their earnings should be capped at 100k a year. Sound like a plan?

(2)(1)

Dave_925says:

June 8, 2015 at 8:09 am

During WWII earnings were capped at $25K to eliminate even the appearance of war profiteering. America is in the equivalent of WWII, we need badly to sort out our economy and provide a decent life to so many working people. Your idea is neither radical nor unprecedented and until this "war" is won, we should do exactly as you describe.

(0)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 6, 2015 at 12:46 pm

Michael, why do you twist what I actually said into something I didn't say??? I said they should pay their fair, that's F*A*I*R as in appropriate in a similar ratio to the taxes paid by people with lower incomes, share. Why do you have a problem with that?

(0)(0)

Kathyhutchinsonsays:

June 7, 2015 at 4:51 am

Just to throw this out there, the very high tax rates during the Eisenhower years are misleading. At that time, pretty well everything was deductible. An executive could deduct all of his meals, his clothing, his car, his travel including his wife's expenses to accompany him. All kind of things that are no longer deductions. The effective rate that the highest earners paid in the Eisenhower years was 40%
.

(2)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 7, 2015 at 8:04 am

That is still way higher than the current effective rate.

(0)(0)

Lipstick_lesbiansays:

June 5, 2015 at 8:41 am

I don't care if some people are multi millionaires but people should not be allowed to have billions of dollars. I don't care if their Republicans or Democrats.

(3)(0)

Veginatorsays:

June 6, 2015 at 10:15 pm

I do care. More money for a few means less money for the needs of the 99% regardless of whether it's billions or millions. Let's tax the rich--on the way to getting rid of this capitalist plutocracy entirely.

(3)(0)

Lipstick_lesbiansays:

June 9, 2015 at 12:41 pm

Don't get me wrong I think multimillionaires should be taxed at 75-80%.

(0)(0)

Disqus_0zGDG2c2jFsays:

June 11, 2015 at 12:11 pm

Why not 100% Why not throw rich people in jail? Why not murder them? Then worthless losers like you would starve in less than a week.

(0)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 5, 2015 at 10:01 am

I love how some people think they have a say in what others are "allowed" to earn.

There are lots of people who think gay people shouldn't be "allowed" to marry. I have this funny feeling that you might take exception to such an idea.

(0)(1)

Lipstick_lesbiansays:

June 9, 2015 at 12:47 pm

I am sure you know I am a lesbian woman and I am not as concerned about gay marriage, gun control, and abortion etc. as I am income inequality.

(1)(0)

Disqus_0zGDG2c2jFsays:

June 11, 2015 at 12:18 pm

Who cares. Get a job.

(0)(0)

Dave_925says:

June 8, 2015 at 8:12 am

There is no honest way a person can earn a Billion dollars. None, zip, zero, Dishonest accumulation of money is thievery plain and simple, whether it's theft of labor or fraud in the manipulation of financial markets, it's dishonesty and therefore, illegal on the face of it, period.

(3)(1)

Disqus_0zGDG2c2jFsays:

June 11, 2015 at 12:12 pm

How much did you earn in your best year Dave? $25K?

(0)(0)

Dreamjoehillsays:

June 7, 2015 at 9:29 am

Extreme wealth disparity is the economic fundamental issue facing the US.
"Earn" all you want, but expect a very high tax rate on the wealthy. Either that or violent revolution.

(3)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 7, 2015 at 9:33 pm

...and it's higher now than it's been since the 20's-- 7 years into Obama's presidency.

(0)(0)

Dreamjoehillsays:

June 7, 2015 at 9:48 pm

Agreed. I am no fan of the neo-Liberal Obama. He sheds crocodile tears for the poor.
Nonetheless, for a democratic society to function, income and wealth disparities must be limited, and that is accomplished by government policies. Since the late 70's, government policies have favored the rich and led to increased income disparity. Progressive income taxation, Protectionism in trade & unions limit income disparity.

(5)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 8, 2015 at 12:23 am

It's sure worked great in Detroit.

(0)(0)

Dave_925says:

June 8, 2015 at 8:21 am

As usual you show you have no concept of what a Capitalist economy can do when its owners decide to go elsewhere in order to find cheap labor. It's not that the Auto Industry was unprofitable, it's just that the owners were so greedy they were willing to destroy the jobs of thousands and thousands of people to make greater profits.

First they sent the jobs to Mexico for a buck an hour then to China for a lot less than that. The economic devastation one sees along the border between the States and Mexico are a direct result of the same corporate policies that made Detroit a wasteland.

When a government allows big bidness to move its jobs to wherever it can get the cheapest labor, the government is not serving its citizenry, it's serving the very wealthiest of its citizens who want even more money at the expense of the livelihoods of so many people. As the old saying goes, money is the root of all evil but in America's case, it's greed that evil roots itself in. Period.

(3)(0)

Dreamjoehillsays:

June 8, 2015 at 12:44 am

Yes it did. The collapse of the auto industry was a result of the collapse of protectionist policies.

(3)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 8, 2015 at 1:18 am

Sure it was-- the fact that it's been entirely controlled by progressives for 50 years is a big, ole coincy-dink.

(0)(0)

Dave_925says:

June 8, 2015 at 8:24 am

Gee, and look at the results in Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark. Progressive governments since WWII and these are the best countries on earth to live in. A big ol' coinkee-dink?

(1)(0)

Michael5186says:

June 9, 2015 at 4:12 am

When are you moving there? Please go!

(0)(0)

Disqus_hsu1ZXUDfZsays:

June 8, 2015 at 2:19 am

You really are infuriatingly ignorant. Detroit's city government doesn't set international trade policies. And Democrats don't always do much different from Republicans. Your tribalism is pathological.

(2)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 8, 2015 at 2:21 am

So's your hypocrisy.

Have a nice day, cupcake.

(0)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 9, 2015 at 9:35 am

Wow. What a way with words! What depth!

(0)(0)

Dreamjoehillsays:

June 8, 2015 at 1:42 am

Go look up the definition of "spurious," you ignorant dog.

(4)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 8, 2015 at 1:59 am

Go look up the definition of "useful idiot", ya statist pajama-boy.

(0)(1)

Dave_925says:

June 8, 2015 at 8:43 am

Gee, it says "Republican", a useful fool who carries water for the Oligarchy and the policies that favor a return to the "Gilded Age" of impoverished workers though they may work 14 hours a day, 6 days a week still can't make ends meet. Where every member of a family works, including the children so that they might eat and have a place to live in. A country where workers are routinely killed on the job because worker safety eats into profits. A country who allows the sale of tainted food and drugs because regulations cost profits. A country where its highest offices are controlled by agents of the wealthy since the wealthy routinely buy politicians (we're already there). Where the wealthy control a propaganda apparatus that continuously spews ideas and thoughts that seem logical but in fact are designed to fool working people into supporting the wealthiest plutocrats as if their interests were the same as the working peoples' (witness the crap you're tossing out, "useful idiot" indeed. I suppose you're still finding "Communists" under your bed, never mind there never has been any REAL Communism practiced anywhere on this planet). I really don't know why I bother, chances are you are a paid shill (most "right wingers" posting on the web are exactly that) and in any case, the far right is so emotionally wrapped up in their "philosophy" because above all the beliefs of the right are based in emotions, mostly fear of that which is different from themselves, that there is simply no debating them. Even when presented with the facts of the matter, facts that contradict them completely, they refuse to change their minds, ever. Lastly, do keep in mind that whatever the right wing accuses you of or claim you are doing is exactly what they have done, are doing or are planning on doing. Projection is what they do because they can't help but believe everyone is up to exactly what they are up to as far as using the same methodologies, tactics and strategies they are. So, if they are stealing elections, they accuse their opponents of stealing elections- see 2000, 2004 and their incessant whining Democrats are using Mexican Immigrants to commit voter fraud which they then use as justification to have voter ID cards and thereby hurt legitimate Democratic voters. The examples are many.

(3)(0)

Dreamjoehillsays:

June 8, 2015 at 2:01 am

LOL. you really are an obnoxious and ignorant pig. You don't hide it ; so you are self-discrediting.

(2)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 8, 2015 at 4:46 am

You're a tough-talking hypocrite coward and a useful idiot commie.

(0)(1)

Disqus_zgojiG4Jnzsays:

June 6, 2015 at 11:54 pm

Nobody is talking about those who work for a living and are highly paid. That's why no one really gives a fuck about oprah and LeBron, who dont even have that much money. People give a fuck about companies that steal money from Americans by the trillions

(1)(0)

Disqus_0zGDG2c2jFsays:

June 11, 2015 at 12:19 pm

Really? Oprah is worth a billion. Dave says that no honest person can make that much.

(0)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 6, 2015 at 12:49 pm

You're just one wonderful guy, Mr. Theinfuriator!!! :D

(1)(0)

Disqus_0zGDG2c2jFsays:

June 11, 2015 at 12:19 pm

Anyone who stirs up liberals and socialists is all right.

(0)(0)

TheInfuriatorsays:

June 6, 2015 at 5:11 pm

Ugh-- reduced to one-note emotional outbursts, I see.

What a surprise.

(0)(0)

Disqus_CNKSvhMXUMsays:

June 7, 2015 at 10:13 am

Sorry to disappoint. I don't do one-note emotional outbursts. My emotional outbursts embrace hundreds of notes and end on high d flats.